ipl-logo

Privileges And Presumptions: The Federal Rules Of Evidence

1392 Words6 Pages

Privileges, presumptions, and judicial notices seem to be misunderstood when dealing with court issues. There are many interpretations of these terms as they are defined within the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). The common issues that come up are in reference to when certain privileges apply; when presumptions can be used in evidence; and how judicial notices apply, what their boundaries are, and what can or cannot be noticed. This paper will look at privileges, presumptions, and judicial notices and define them according to West’s Encyclopedia of American Law and according to the FRE. Arguments for and against each will also be made and it will be shown how they are applied through the FRE. Cases will be used to show reference for a better …show more content…

This was, of course, met with disagreement. Originally, under the English legal system, jurors could only be empanelled if they had some knowledge of the underlying facts, or were a witness to the activities that caused the trial. But, deeply concerned with the search for truth, the system evolved (EPIC Staff, n.d.). The courts started looking for other ways to get witnesses in court to testify in the interest of society. The system introduced a compulsory process which compelled them to testify, however, at the same time a privilege doctrine that protects an individual’s rights to privacy was being created. These doctrines were in constant conflict. Those who favored privacy believed that to compel disclosure of a confidential communication was inherently wrong (EPIC Staff, n.d.). Therefore, compelled testimony would infringe on the right of people to control the distribution of their personal information and keep people from sharing that information with their friends for fear their friends would be forced to reveal it. However, the need to protect private information from compelled disclosure was not always recognized as a legal interest. To determine a need for privacy, courts had to handle things on a case by case basis and weigh the information necessary. This test balanced the validity of the right sought and the need for protection against society's interest in ascertaining the truth. Where ever the privacy interest of a person outweighed society's interest, a privilege was created. The law of privilege recognizes that there are certain types of communications and relationships that are integral to the just operation of society, and the law of privilege is designed to foster those communications and relationships by assuring people that the resulting evidence will not be admissible in court. Privilege presumes that the harm to society

Show More
Related

  • Keeble Supreme Court Case Study

    1431 Words  | 6 Pages

    Therefore, we can submit that the courts erred in relying on the Act given that they deviated from it in the charges against the petitioner. Thus, we argue that the initial prosecution did not fall under the jurisdiction of the federal district court but under the jury that tried offenders of minor crimes like simple

    Read More

  • Knox Pros And Cons

    1622 Words  | 7 Pages

    Even though the circumstantial evidence implicated Brad, the forensic evidence presented was sufficient to implicate Knox. The testimony made by Mrs. Knox was admissible as the spousal privilege was broken. However, the defense representing Knox could argue based on the Fourth Circuit to dismiss the testimony against him. The Fourth Circuit holds that Mrs. Knox’s statement should be inadmissible and as such, violates the confrontation clause. The use of this testimony to implicate Knox violates the aspect of spousal privileges.

    Read More

  • Rhetorical Analysis: Hoffa V. United States

    625 Words  | 3 Pages

    One of, if not, the most provocative arguments Kerr offers in his article is that the third-party doctrine should not be framed in terms of “reasonable expectation of privacy” in which a person “waives” their reasonable expectation of privacy, but rather as a consent doctrine. In his view, what we voluntarily disclose to third parties eliminates Fourth Amendment protection because of implied consent. Specifically, a person voluntarily discloses information to a third party if they do so knowingly. Consequently, searches, if a government agent’s conduct is deemed as such, are reasonable because the person allowed the government to do so. Kerr’s example for his principle is problematic.

    Read More

  • The Case Of Samuel V. Morgan

    1077 Words  | 5 Pages

    This memorandum is written in response to your September 1, 2015 request for information regarding the case of Samuel V. Morgan. The analysis will show that Samuel is liable to pay the fine. Robert is a senior weight lifter and member of the Alpha Chapter, Beta Phi Gamma Fraternity, Inc. at Howard University. Although he is strong, he is extremely slow moving which forces him to limit himself to fighting with people who are considerably smaller than he.

    Read More

  • Summary Of Miranda V. Arizona

    672 Words  | 3 Pages

    These rights must be read to all suspects. When authorities fail to inform the suspects of their rights, any evidence that is obtained under integration is inadmissible because it violates the suspect’s constitutional rights. In the case of Escobedo v. Illinois, Escobedo was placed under interrogation in order to obtain a confession. The authorities failed to read Escobedo his rights, and continued interrogating for hours while denying his rights to see an attorney. During trial, the State used Escobedo’s confession but was held inadmissible because it was obtained unlawfully putting the defendant at risk of self-incrimination.

    Read More

  • Executive Privilege: The Supreme Court Case

    199 Words  | 1 Pages

    Before the Supreme Court, Nixon’s attorneys debated that the doctrine of separation of powers prohibited the Supreme Court from investigation this case. The Court vetoed their claim, replying that the circumstance presented a constitutional question, and consequently fell within the responsibility of the judicial branch as interpreter of the Constitution. President Nixon’s attorneys also proclaimed that the president was permitted to unconditional executive privilege. This meant that he could not be required to disclose anything unless he desired to. The Court acknowledged that the president was allowed a degree of executive privilege.

    Read More

  • The Supreme Court's Secret Power Summary

    738 Words  | 3 Pages

    The United States Supreme Court is not transparent to the citizens in this country and they fail to publicly reveal reasoning’s to their decisions that they have made. The courts non-transparency make people wonder and uncomfortable for congress has to openly show how they voted one bills Jeffrey L. Fisher razes this type of questions in his article “The Supreme Court’s Secret Power” in The New York Times he raises concern for the Supreme Court and the justice; claiming that they have become too powerful and the people of this country deserve to see how each justice vote due we entrusted them I the position and we deserve to know if they are in good favor.

    Read More

  • Case: State Of California Vs. Scott Lee Peterson

    716 Words  | 3 Pages

    This aspect is concerned with the powers that be placing the defendant on trial, and proving that a law had been violated by

    Read More

  • Why Privacy Matters Even If You Have Nothing To Hide Analysis

    1651 Words  | 7 Pages

    Nowadays, “privacy” is becoming a popular conversation topic. Many people believe that if they do not do anything wrong in the face of technology and security, then they have nothing to hide. Professor Daniel J. Solove of George Washington University Law School, an internationally known expert in privacy law, wrote the article Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’, published in The Chronicle of Higher Education in May of 2011. Solove explains what privacy is and the value of privacy, and he insists that the ‘nothing to hide’ argument is wrong in this article. In the article, “Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’”, Daniel J. Solove uses ethos, pathos, and logos effectively by using strong sources, using

    Read More

  • The Importance Of The Sixth Amendment

    1009 Words  | 5 Pages

    This practice was not executed by the American colonies and most of the original thirteen states gave defendants in all cases the right to have layers. Never the less, the United States’ Supreme Court was faced through the years with cases involving criminals who cannot afford legal counsel. The question at hand was whether they should be granted the right to a lawyer at public expense, or whether the Sixth Amendment guaranteed that the government could not stop defendants from hiring one. An important

    Read More

  • Executive Privilege Analysis

    701 Words  | 3 Pages

    The executive privilege has been a subject of many interbranch disputes. Rarely, however, it is to be found completely unconstitutional by either Congress or the courts. The scope of information that is withheld from Congress and the public relies on the presidential interpretation and willingness of Congress to pursue an inquiry. Privilege is therefore more likely to be judged on its merits. The thesis presented the mechanisms of checks and balances that are available and were used to oppose the executive privilege claims.

    Read More

  • Low Voter Turnout In America

    504 Words  | 3 Pages

    The U.S. legal system has numerous pros and cons discovered throughout history and the ambiguous system is a glorious quality. The American public has the right to decided whether the legal system’s benefits outweigh the

    Read More

  • Rhetorical Analysis Of The Nothing To Hide Argument By Daniel J. Solove

    541 Words  | 3 Pages

    The “Nothing-to-Hide Argument” Analyzed: In this rhetorical analysis, I will be taking a look at Daniel J. Solove’s essay “The Nothing-to-Hide Argument,” which is about privacy in the context of personal information and government data collection (Solove 734). Solove’s main argument in his essay is that the general public has a narrow perception of what privacy really is. The purpose behind his main argument is to expose the problems with the nothing-to-hide argument while presenting a way to challenge it for his target audience, government officials. Solove’s argument to his target audience is effective through his exemplary use of substance, organization, and style in his essay.

    Read More

  • Trial By Jury Advantages And Disadvantages

    1472 Words  | 6 Pages

    This essay will briefly discuss the role of the jury and how it works, from the principle behind it, to the method with which members are selected, and to the powers available to jurors. Moreover, it will outline advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, and it will point out a couple of ways which could ameliorate this type of trial. Trial by jury has been a part of the criminal justice system since the 12th century (Davies, 2015), it is considered an ancient right and a symbol of liberty (Hostettler, 2004). It creates no precedent and it can decide challenging cases equitably without making bad law, it also brings members of the public into the administration of justice and into an understanding of legal and human rights (Hostettler,

    Read More

  • Analyse The Origin And Development Of The Privilege Against Self Incrimination

    568 Words  | 3 Pages

    The privilege against self-incrimination allows a person to refrain from answering questions or producing documents which may result if, in the opinion of the trial judge, in the exposure of said person to a criminal or civil charge. The privilege can be relied upon at any stage prior to or within proceedings when/if incriminating evidence is sought from them. With the introduction of the Criminal Justice Act 2007 (2007 Act), the privilege of self-incrimination has been somewhat placed under threat. Part 4 of the 2007 Act has created a number of reforms relevant to the privilege of self-incrimination/right to silence. These reforms will allow a jury/court, dependent on the case, to draw inferences from the accused’s silence during the investigation

    Read More

More about Privileges And Presumptions: The Federal Rules Of Evidence

Open Document