Legal Definitions - Federal Rules of Evidence

The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) are a comprehensive set of guidelines that dictate what information, or "evidence," can be presented and how it can be used in civil and criminal court cases within the United States federal court system. Their primary purpose is to ensure that trials are conducted fairly, efficiently, and with the goal of discovering the truth to reach a just outcome. These rules cover a wide range of topics, including what makes evidence relevant, when a witness is qualified to testify, how to handle privileged communications (like those between a doctor and patient), and specific restrictions on certain types of testimony, such as hearsay. Judges rely on the FRE to make critical decisions about what information juries can consider when deciding a case.

• Product Liability Case and Expert Testimony:

  In a federal lawsuit alleging a defective medical device caused injury, the plaintiff wants to call a mechanical engineer to testify about the device's design flaws. The defense attorney argues that this engineer, while skilled in general mechanics, lacks specific expertise in medical device manufacturing and regulatory standards.

  The judge would refer to the Federal Rules of Evidence to determine if the mechanical engineer is sufficiently qualified as an expert witness to provide testimony in this specific field. The FRE provide criteria for assessing an expert's knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to ensure their testimony is reliable and helpful to the jury.

• Contract Dispute and Irrelevant Information:

  During a federal trial concerning a breach of contract between two companies, one company's lawyer attempts to introduce evidence of the opposing CEO's personal bankruptcy from ten years ago, arguing it shows a pattern of financial irresponsibility.

  The judge would apply the Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically rules regarding relevance. The judge would likely rule this evidence inadmissible because the CEO's past personal bankruptcy is probably not relevant to whether their company breached a specific contract today, and even if marginally relevant, its potential to unfairly prejudice the jury or confuse the issues outweighs any probative value.

• Civil Rights Case and Hearsay:

  In a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging discrimination, a witness attempts to testify that their friend told them they overheard a manager making discriminatory remarks. The friend is not present in court to testify themselves.

  This situation involves hearsay, which the Federal Rules of Evidence generally prohibit because it's an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and the person who made the original statement cannot be cross-examined. The judge would use the FRE to determine if this "friend of a friend" testimony falls under one of the specific exceptions to the hearsay rule, or if it must be excluded to ensure the reliability of the evidence presented to the jury.