The first principle of evidence involves relevancy. Evidence is relevant if a reasonable fact-finder could feel that it renders some fact more probable or less probable in any degree than it appeared before the introduction of the evidence. Relevancy does not require that the fact be made to appear highly probable. We are not testing sufficiency of the total proof of a case. Instead, the basic rule seeks to establish an entry threshold upon which a building block may be constructed. In some cases, the judge and jury may have to resort to matters not in the record to determine whether or not a piece of evidence renders a proposition more probable than before. As a basic principle, relevancy subsumes materiality. The remainder of the book explains presumptions under the law, heresay, impeachment of witnesses, exemptions and a whole host of complicating factors relevant in a trial setting.
The book is written for a legal constituency. It assumes some legal background or knowledge of basic definitions. The constituency of this book consists of legal scholars, lawyers, law students and a wide constituency in business and academe. It is well worth the price for serious students of the law.
What did you think of this review?
Fun to Read
About the reviewer
Dr Joseph S Maresca (JSMaresca)
Dr. Joseph S. Maresca CPA, CISA PhD-Ross College Major- Accounting, Minor- Computer Applications Information Systems MBA-New York University … more
Consider the Source
Use Trust Points to see how much you can rely on this review.
Federal Rules of Evidence are the anchor of this single-volume Nutshell. The text summarizes significant U.S. Supreme Court decisions, additional leading cases, and principal schools of evidentiary thought. Expert coverage includes practical implementation of the rules at trial or their connection to pre-trial or post-trial proceedings. Areas of interdisciplinary cross-pollination are noted as well.--This text refers to an alternatePaperbackedition.