Applicability of The Rules
FRE 1101(a)
(a) To Courts and judges. The rules apply to proceedings before:
- United States district courts;
- United States bankruptcy and magistrate judges;
- United States court of appeals;
- The United States Court of Federal Claims; and
- The district courts of Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands
FRE 103(a)
FRE 103(a) Preserving a Claim of Error
A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exlude evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of the party and;
(1) If the ruling admits evidence, a party, on the record:
(a) timely objects or moves to strike; and
(b) states the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context; or
(2) If the ruling excludes evidence, a party informs the court of its substance by an offer of proof, unless the substance was apparent from the context.
FRE 105: Limiting Evidence
If the court admits evidence that is admissible against a party or for a purpose - but not against another party or for another purpose - the court, on timely request, must restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.
Example: Suppose D is on trial for robbing a bank. The prosecution wants to introduce evidence that D was previously convicted of another bank robbery.
The evidence might be admissible under rule 404(b) to show D's knowledge, intent, or absence of mistake, but it generally cannot be used to simply prove
The judge might tell the jury:
"You may consider the evidence of the defendant's prior only for the limited purpose of determing the defendant's intent. You may not consider it as evidence that the defendant has a propensity to commit crimes or that the defendant acted in conformity with a criminal character.
Objection
Stop the evidence before or as the problem occurs
Why object:
- Preseve arguments for appeal and create your record
- Keep improper evidence away from the jury
- Reduce prejudice before the bell is rung
- Control the narrative without appearing obstructive
- Force the court to rule on the contested evidence
- Create your record - your footprints.
Proper Objection:
"Objection, hearsay."
"Objection, argumentative."
"Objection, Rule 403."
"May we approach?"
FRE 1101(b)
FRE 1101(b) To Cases and Procedings. These rules apply in:
- Civil cases and proceedings, including bankruptcy, admiralty, and maritime cases;
- Criminal cases and proceedings; and
- Comtempt proceedings, except those in which the court may act summarily
FRE 103(b)
FRE 103(b) Not Needing to Renew An Objection or Offer of Proof
Once the court rules definitvely on the record -- either before or at trial -- a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.
REMEMBER: If the judge defers, reserves ruling, or is unclear, renew objection at trial.
Defendant Dan and Defendant Dave are tried together in a federal civil action for negligence. During the plaintiff's case-in-chief, the plaintiff offers a written statement previously made by Dan that explicitly implciates both Dan and Dave in the negligent act. Dave's attorney objects to the admission of the statement as inadmissible hearsay against Dave. The trial judge determines that the statement is admissible against Dan as opposing party's statement under FRE 801(d)(2), but concedes it is inadmissible hearsay as to Dave.
The trial judge overrules Dave's objection and admits the statement into evidence without any immediate comment or instuction to the jury. Dave's counsel does not make any further request or motion at that time.
Did the trial judge err?
A. Yes, because the judge must automatically give limiting instuction upon admitting evidence that is restricted to a single party.
B. Yes, because a limiting instructin is legally insufficient to cure the prejudice against Dave in a multi-defendant trial.
C. No, because the court is not required to issue a limiting instruction unless a timely request is made by counsel.
D. No, because an opposing party's statement is fully admissible against all co-defendants under joint liablity rules.
Answer: C. No, because the court is not required to issue a limiting instruction unless timely request is made by counsel.
Why (c) is correct. Under fRE 105, the trial court's duty to restrict evidence to its proper scope and issue a limiting instruction is contingent upon timely request by a party. If counsel fails to make a timely request when the evidence is admitted, the judge has no madatory duty to give the instruction spontaneously, and the issue is generally waived on appeal.
Why (A) is incorrect: The rule explicitly states that the duty is triggered "on timely request"' the court is not required to give a limiting instruction sua spine (on its own initiative).
Why (B) is incorrect: While certain extreme situation (such as co-defendant confessions under Bruton v. United States) render limiting instructions legally insufficient, standard multi-defendant statements where a request wasn't made do not automatically make the instuction legally insufficient or render the admission erroneous under the procedurfal machanics.
Why (D) is incorrect: An opposing paryt's statement under FRE 801(d)(2) is only admissible against the party who made it (or adopted it); it does not automatically become substantive evidence against a co-defendant just because they are tried together.
Motion to Strike
The answer already reached the record. Ask the court to remove it.
FRE 1101 (c)
FRE 1101(c) Rules of Privilege.
The rules on privilege apply to all stages of a case of proceedings.
FRE 103(d)
To the extent practicable, the court must conduct a jury trial so that inadmissible evidence is not suggesgted to the jury by any means.
REMEMBER: Dealing with objections -- bench conference or excuse the jury from the courtroom
A defenant is on trial in federal court for bank robbery. To prove identity, the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant committed a differnt bank robbery two weeks prior using the exact same unique disguise and calling card. The defendant's attorney object, arguing the evidence is improper character evidence and higly prejudicial.
The trial judge rules that the evidence is admissible for the limited purpose of proving identity under FRE 404(b), and that its probative value is not substantially outweighted by unfair prejudice under FRE 403. The defendant's attorney then explicitly requests that the judge instruct the jury to considerf the prior robbery only as evidence of identity, and not as proof of the defendant's bad character or general propensity to commit crimes. The judge refuses the request, stating that the jury can weigh the evidence as they see fit.
Ws the judge's refusal to give the requested instruction correct?
A. Yes, because the judge already determined that the evidence survived the FRE 403 balancing test.
B. Yes, because a judge has total discretion over whether or not to issue limiting instructions during a criminal trial.
C. No, because when evidence is admitted for a limited purpose, the court must give a limiting instruction if a party timely requests it.
D. No, because prior bad acts can never be admiited in a criminal case due to the risk of jury prejudice.
Correct Answer: C. No, because when evidence is admitted for a limited purpose, the court must give a limiting instruction if a party timely requests it.
Why (c) is correct. Under FRE 105, the court's duty to restrict evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury is madatory if a party makes a timely request. Because the defendant's attorny explicitly and timely requested the limiting instruction after the judge ruled the evidence admissible for a specific purpose (identity), the judge had no discretion to refuse. The text of the rule states the court "must restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly"
Why (A) is incorrect: Surviving and FRE 403 balancing test means the evidence is admissible, but it does nto erase the requirement to limit its scope. In fact, a limiting instruction under FRE 105 is often one of the key factors a judge considers to mitigate unfair prejudice when conducting an FRE 403 balance.
Why (B) is incorrect: While judges have broad discretion over timing and exact phrasing of jury instructions, they do not have discretion to competely deny a proper, timely request for a limiting instruction under FRE 105..
Why (D) is incorrect: This is an incorrect statement of law. Under FRE 404(b), prior bad acts are admissible for non-propensity purposes, such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
Motion in Limine
- Requests that the court admit or exclude contested evidence before trial.
- Asks the trial court to rule in advance on whether evidence may or may not be mentioned or introduced at trial
- Focuses on what the jury may hear
- Trial management
FRE 1101(d) When Do the FRE Not Apply?
FRE 1101(d) Exceptions. These rules - except for those privilege - do not apply to the following:
(1) the court's determination, under Rule 104(a), on preliminary question of fact governing admissibility;
(2) grand-jury proceedings; and
(3) miscellaneous proceedings such as:
- Extradition or rendition;
- Issuing an arrest warrant, criminal summons, or search warrant;
- a preliminary examinaiton in a criminal case;
- sentencing;
- granting or revoking probation or supervised release; and
- Considering whether to release a bail or otherwise
Preserving Evidentiary Issues Steps
Object or move to strike - Be timely - State the specific ground - Get a ruling
A plaintiff sues a trucking company for negligence after an accident involving one of the company's drivers. At trial, the plaintiff introduces evidence that two weeks after the accident, the company updated its fleet policy to madate advanced automatic braking systems on all its trucks. The trucking company objects, citing FRE 407 (Subsequent Remedial Measures). The trial judge rules that because the company denied ownership and control of the evidence during pretrial depositions, the evidence is admissible for the limited purpose of proving control, but inadmissible to prove negligence.
The trucking company's counsel immediately moves that the court instruct the jury to consider the fleet update only as evidence of control and not as an admission of fault or negligence. The judge refuses, stating, "I will address tha tin the final jury instructions at the end of the trial, not right now."
Did the trial judge err?
A. Yes, because limiting instruction undeer FRE 105 must be given immediately at the moment the evidence is admitted if requested.
B. Yes, because subsequent remedial measures are completley inadmissible in a civil negligence trial for any purpose.
C. No, because the timing of a limiting instruction is within the borad discretion of the trial court.
D. No, because the defendant waived the issue by objecting to the admissibility of the evidence in the first place
Correct Answer: C. No, because the timing of a limiting instruction is within the broad discretion of the trial court.
Why (C) is correct: While FRE 105 makes giving a limiting instruction mandatory upon a timely request, it does not dictate the exact timing. Federal appellate courts generally hold that the trial judge retains broad discretion under FRE 611 to determine whether to give the instruction at the time the evidence is introduced, during the final charge to the jury, or both.
Why (A) is incorrect: While it is often considered "best practice" to give the instruction immediately to minimize prejudice, it is not a strict requirement under FRE 105
Why (B) is incorrect: Under FRE 407, subsequent remedial measures are admissile for other purposes, such as proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures, if those issues are controverted.
Why (D) is incorrect: Objecting to admissiblity does not waive the right to alternative releif (like a limiting instruction) if the primary objection is overruled.
Motion to Suppress
- Argues that evidence was illegally obtained, rather than merely inadmissible under the FRE.
- Asks the trial court to exclude unlawfully obtained evidence
- Focuses on legality of how evidence was obtained
- Constitutional/Criminal procedure issue
During a federal criminal sentencing hearing, the prosecution offers an unauthenticated hearsay letter from a neighbor detailing the defendant's past aggressive behavior. The defense objects, arguing the letter is inadmissible hearsay and lacks authentication.
How should the federal district judge rule on the defense's objection?
A. Sustain the objection, because hearsay is strictly inadmissible at all stages of a federal proceeding.
B. Overrule the objection, because the Federal Rules of Evidence (Except for rules on privilege) do not apply to sentencing proceedings.
C. Sustain the objection, because unauthenticated documents can never be reviewed by a judge.
D. Overrule the objection only if the defense consents to the admission of the letter.
Correct Answer: B
Why B is correct: Under Federal Rule of Evidence 1101(c)(3), the general rules of evidence -- including rules against hearsay and requirments for authentication -- do not apply to sentencing hearings. However, the rules on privilege still apply at all stages of the proceeding.
Why A, C, and D are incorrect: Hearsay and authentication rules are relaxed or inapplicabe during sentencing, and judicial consideration of such materials does not require defense consent.
During a civil trial, the plaintiff attempts to introduce a blurry photograph of an accident scene. The defendant timely objects, stating simply, "Objection, relevance." The trial judge sustains the objection and excludes the photograph. The plaintiff does not make an offer of proof, nor do they state what the photograph depicts, assuming it is obvious. On appeal, the plaintiff argues the exclusion was error.
Did the plaintiff properly preserve the claim or error regarding the exclusionof the photograph under FRE 103? Explain
Answer: No, the plaintiff did not preserve the claim of error because they failed to make an offer of proof and the substance of the evidence was not apparent from the context.
- Preserving an Exclusion of Evidence (FRE 103(a)(2)): To claim error on a ruling that excludes evidence, a party must inform the court of the substance of the evidence through an offer of proof (unless the substance is already apparent from the context).
- The Context Exception: Simply saying the photo is from the "accident scene" does not make the specific, substance contents or significance of a blurry photograph apparent.
- Substantial Right: Error cannot be predicated on exclusion unless subsantial right is affected and the appellate court actually knows what the excluded evidence would have shown. Because the plaintiff failed to put the substance of the photograph on the record, the appellate court cannot evaluate whether the exclusion harmed the plaintifif's case.
In a federal criminal trial for tax fraud, the prosecution calls a witness to testify. On cross-examination, the defense impeaches the witness by introducing a certified record of the witness's prior felony conviction for perjuty from five years ago. The prosecution doesn't object to the admission of the conviction record but requests the judge instruct the jury that they may only use the conviction to evaluate the witness's credibility, and not as evidence of the defendant's guilt.
The judge refuses to give instruction, noting that the witness is a crucial associate of the defendant and the jury should have full context.
Did the trial judge err?
A. Yes, because a witness's prior conviction can never be used as substantive evidence of a criminal defendant's guilt.
B. Yes, because the prosecution is an opposing party and has an absolute right to prevent a jury from considering character evidence.
C. No, because FRE 105 only applies to proctect defendants, not the prosecution or governent witnesses.
D. No, because prior convictions involing dishonesty are automatically admissible for all purposes under FRE 609.
Correct Answer: A. Yes, because a witness's prior conviction can never be used as substantive evidence of a criminal defendant's guilt.
Why (A) is correct: Under FRE 609, a prior conviction, involving dishonesty is admissible to attack a witness's character for truthfulness (credibility). However, it is fundamentally inadmissible as substantive evidence to prove that a completely different person (the defendant) committed a crime. Because the evidence was admissible for one purpose (impeachment) but inadmissible for another (substantive guilt), the prosecution made a proper, timely request under FRE 105 to restrict its scope, and the judge's refusal was an error.
Why (B) is incorrect: The prosecution cannot block the defense from using proper impeachment evidence under FRE 609; their remedying is a limiting instruction under FRE 105, not absolute exclusion
Why (C) is incorrect: FRE 105 is neutral and protects any party (plaintiff, prosecution, or defense) from the misuse of restrict evidecne.
Why (D) is incorrect: Prior convictions under FRE 609 are restricted specifically to the issue of credibility; they are never automativally admissible for "all purposes."