Federal Rules of Evidence¶
States, U. (2024). Federal Rules of Evidence.
Cited by¶
4 citations across 4 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Blinding
- In legal and judicial procedure, sequestration and the rules of evidence are procedural cuts of inadmissible channels.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Rule 403 shows evidence rules letting a court keep prejudicial or misleading information from the jury; it does not address sequestration or the 'channel' framing.
“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury”
- In legal and judicial procedure, sequestration and the rules of evidence are procedural cuts of inadmissible channels.
- Informal Fallacy
- In law and adjudication, rules of relevance and evidence are partly codifications of informal-fallacy avoidance: character evidence rules guard against ad hominem reasoning, the prohibition on assuming facts not in evidence guards against question-begging, and the recurring balancing of probative against prejudicial value is precisely the demand that an item's persuasive force not exceed its logical force
This sourceCornell Legal Information Institute. Codifies exclusion of evidence whose unfair prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value, and character-evidence limits — codifications of ad-hominem/relevance fallacy avoidance.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Rule 403 and its note supply the probative-versus-prejudicial balancing; character-evidence rules, facts-not-in-evidence and the fallacy framing are not in this text.
“Situations in this area call for balancing the probative value of and need for the evidence against the harm likely to result from its admission.”
- In law and adjudication, rules of relevance and evidence are partly codifications of informal-fallacy avoidance: character evidence rules guard against ad hominem reasoning, the prohibition on assuming facts not in evidence guards against question-begging, and the recurring balancing of probative against prejudicial value is precisely the demand that an item's persuasive force not exceed its logical force
Domain-specific¶
Mechanisms¶
- Contemporaneous Event Log
- This is exactly the property that legal systems lean on when they admit records "made at or near the time" by someone with knowledge as an exception to the hearsay rule.
This sourceProvides a hearsay exception for qualifying records made at or near the time by someone with knowledge.
- This is exactly the property that legal systems lean on when they admit records "made at or near the time" by someone with knowledge as an exception to the hearsay rule.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 4 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Was it audited? Yes. A second, independent pass read the citation against the article text and recorded a verdict.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 2 other ways.
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403 ×1
- https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/federal-rules-of-evidence-dec-1-2024_0.pdf ×1
Registry ID ref:84dd52dc0798 · see in the full table