Inundating meaning word

Since his credibility is an issue in the case, the defendant wants to impeach him by introducing the fact that plaintiff was convicted of aggravated assault some eight years ago and received a sentence of 18-36 months in jail.

Plaintiff's counsel objects, citing the prejudicial nature of the proffered evidence.

In the example above, since the conviction was only eight years old, it would meet the time limitation in Rule 609.

In addition to the time element, however, Rule 609 also limits use of prior convictions depending upon the nature of the crime.

That single witness has provided a tape-recorded statement to the defendant's insurance company in which he states that the plaintiff had the green light.

The case is now called to trial, and the plaintiff calls as his only liability witness the individual who was standing on the corner.

i.e., in Spain circa 1485, can you prove that the earth is round? In Blum v, Merrell Dow, 764 A.2d 1 (Supreme 2000), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had an opportunity to weigh in on the Frye debate. Frito Lay839 A.2d 1038 (Supreme 2003) our Supreme Court resolved all questions concerning both the continued viability of Frye and its true meaning.Even though it was not "generally accepted" that the earth was round, his for arriving at that conclusion was generally accepted, hence the opinion is admissible. Although our hypothetical about Columbus does not raise the issue, it should be noted that there is another significant difference between federal and state practice on the whole Daubert debate.Federal courts seem much more inclined to apply Daubert to virtually type of expert testimony being proffered in court. Carmichael, 526 US 137 (1999), whereas the Superior Court in Pennsylvania has gone out of its way to make the point that "Frye only applies when a party seeks to introduce , at p. Conclusion --- In federal court, Columbus may not be permitted to testify even though his methodology for concluding the shape of the earth is "generally accepted," whereas under current Pennsylvania law his testimony would be admissible. PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS - Rule 803 and 803.1Practical Context --- Plaintiff and defendant are involved in an intersection collision where the sole issue is which party had the green light.Pennsylvania limits impeachment to those crimes which involve dishonesty.Thus, unlike the federal practice, in state court the conviction cited in the example above would not be admissible since it was not in the nature of . In Daubert, the dispute was not over the shape of the earth, but rather whether a certain drug could cause birth defects in an unborn fetus.

Leave a Reply