Federal Rules of Evidence

its product never showed evidence of causing birth defects. But to challenge this, the parents had their own experts to say otherwise that in animal trials the drug did in fact cause birth defects. One of the things that helped the judges to determine their ruling was the Federal Rules of Evidence; this basically lays out what the scope of an expert

exclusionary rule, which changed the way a criminal going through prosecution is performed. One of many important rulings that was adopted by the courts that prevented police officers from conducting illegal search and seizure was the exclusionary rule. Until this decision, the rights against illegal search and seizure had no method to be enforced on officers. Before Mapp v. Ohio, previous cases provided little or no protection from illegal searches and seizures

5 Points Which of the following cases CAN NOT be heard in federal court? A.A claim based on the Age Discrimination under the Federal Employment Act. B.A tort claim between citizens of the same state. C.A case brought by the State of New Jersey against the State of New York. D.A case between a citizen from Maine and a citizen from Rhode Island, where the claim is more than $75,000. Feedback: Questions of federal law and diversity between different states and citizens of

To the everyday US citizen the United States Supreme Court is a nonexistent entity that is not often heard from or seen unless it reaches a decision on a controversial case. Mapp v. Ohio was one of the controversial cases that the Supreme Court made a decision on in 1961. What were the facts of the case? What constitutional issues are in question? What did the court decide, and what were there reasoning of the justices? What is the significance of the case? The facts of the case was the police officers

Exclusionary Rule Many constitutions all over the world provide basis for innocence until proven guilty. As such, the courts of law must always factor in the provisions of criminal procedure and natural justice when cross-examining offenders. In light of this, the exclusionary rule allows a defendant to argue his case if his privacy rights were violated before arraigned in court. In essence, the provisions of the exclusionary rule prevent the government authorities and machinery such as FBI and CIA

about the factors which helped to the setting of the federal funds rate, from three perspectives. Influence of increasing in demand, speculation, and overzealous investing in the housing market, are some of the reviewed factors in this paper. Also, it discussed and examine the role of US monetary policy in setting the prices in the housing market. Throughout the paper, we read about the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) and will determine the Federal fund rate. FOMC is, in fact, the underlying foundation

begins when a legal representative for the federal government, the U.S. attorney or an assistant U.S. attorney, convenes a federal grand jury and presents it with evidence or information that indicates that a specific person committed a crime. Only crimes that engage federal laws are tried in federal court, such as bank robberies, serious drug law violations, securities law cases, or damage to federal property. If the grand jury believes there is enough evidence to show that the person in all probability

On the other hand, an expert witness holds a specialized knowledge in the area/field that concerns the case and whose opinion is called upon. The Daubert Rule vs. The Frye Standard Of late, there has been an ongoing heated debate concerning expert testimony. This is due to the fact that, more are times that the scientific evidence

knowledge and taken for granted by the vast majority of the population. However it was not always that way. American legislation is constantly growing and developing. New rules and practices are being developed and established. The exclusionary rule is considered to be the most vital to the protection of civil rights. The exclusionary rule is represented by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and it guarantees that illegally

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE Among the arguments in support of the exclusionary rule4 by its proponents are the following: 1. It deters violations of constitutional rights by police and prosecutors. A number of studies and testimonies by police officers support this contention. 2. It manifests society’s refusal to convict lawbreakers by relying on official lawlessness—a clear demonstration of our commitment to the rule of law that states that no person, not even a law enforcement