|Law school matching|
|Law School Rankings|
|Law School Search|
|FREE Law School Outlines|
|Click the nut|
|Evidence Federal v State Comparison|
Comparison of the Michigan and Federal Rules of Evidence
R. 101 – Identical except Second sentence of MRE has no equivalent in the FRE
R. 102 – Identical except for MRE uses the words “are intended” FRE uses the words “shall be”
R. 103 – Identical
R. 104 – Identical
R. 105 – Identical
R. 106 – Identical
R. 201 – Identical except; MRE 201 adds these two phrases “(a) and does not preclude judicial notice of legislative facts.” And “(c) and may require a party to supply necessary information”; and the MRE’s exclude section (d) so all the latter subsection move one letter – FRE 201(d) states “when mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.”
R. 202 – No FRE equivalent to MRE 202
R. 301 – Identical except MRE 301 say by statute, and FRE 301 says by act of congress
R. 302 – Identical
Applicable Rules –
R. 401 – Definition of Relevant Evidence - Identical to Federal Rule
R. 402 – Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible – identical – except substituted MI constitution for US Constitution
R. 403 – Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time – Identical to the Federal Rule
R. 404 – Character Evidence not Admissible to prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes – MRE 404(a) is Identical to FRE 404(a) except for the addition of 404(a)(3), regarding evidence of eh character of the victim in a case charging criminal sexual conduct.
404 (b) is identical except the word “plan” is replaced by the phrase “scheme, plan, or system in doing an act” and an added phrase “when the same is material, whether such other crimes, wrongs, or acts are contemporaneous with or prior or subsequent to the conduct at issue in the case.” The rule is applicable to criminal and civil cases
Further, now prosecution has to justify its rational for admitting evidence
R. 405 – Methods of proving character – Identical; (a) second sentence of MRE 405(a) changed to limit inquiry on cross “reports of” and relevant specific instances of conduct
R. 406 – Identical
R. 407 – Identical
R. 408 – Identical
R. 409 – Identical
R. 410 – Identical for FRE 410 and Rule 11(e)(6) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure except that the concluding phrase “if the statement was made by the defendant under oath, on record, and in the presence of counsel” is omitted form MRE 410
Conforming changes in MRE to FRE: include placement of commas around the phrase “in any civil or criminal proceeding”
R. 411 – Identical to FRE except for the words “if controverted” in the second sentence are added
R. 501- identical
R. 601 – Identical except for the introductory phrase “[u]nless the court finds after questioning a person that he does not have sufficient physical or mental capacity or sense of obligation to testify truthfully and understandably.”
R. 602 – Identical
R. 603 – Identical
R. 604 – Identical
R. 605 – Identical
R. 606 – similar to FRE 606(a) – difference; MRE provides as to error committed by permitting a juror to testify “no objection need be made in order to preserve that point”
R. 607 – Identical now; March ’91 amendment
R. 608 – Identical; Amended in MRE 405 the included makes it the same as FRE 608(a) provides that the credibility of a witness may be attacked or is supported by “evidence in the form of opinion or reputation.”
In last clause of FRE 608(a) “attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise.” But cannot use opinion to prove character.
R. 609 – MRE 609(a) is a modified version of it FRE counterpart --- MRE 609(a) has two things different, first, inserts the phrase “theft” before the phrase dishonesty or false statement; and the second item, it requires the court to review the evidences probative value (balancing a 403 determination) as a condition of admissibility all convictions used for impeachment.
609(b) – identical to FRE counterpart, except it omits from first sentence “unless court determines, in the interest of justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs it prejudicial effect” and it omits the FRE counterpart entire second sentence
R. 610 – Identical
R. 611 – (a) identical – but sub (b) differs: FRE states limits cross to subject matter brought up on direct or matter affecting credibility of a witness; courts discretion to admit inquiry into additional matters on direct – FRE (b) is identical to MRE (c)
MRE have a (c)(3) – it allows attorney’s who call adverse witness are allowed to ask leading questions at any time; even without declaring intent to do so in advance.
R. 612 – Identical, except MRE added “for their bearing on credibility on unless otherwise admissible under these rules for another purpose” in sub rule (c)
R. 613 – MRE (a) is inconsistent with FRE (a) – MRE is more restrictive than FRE; MRE 613(a) requires witness always be shown a copy of witness’s former statement, when questioned on it; FRE requires it only shown upon request.
R. 614 – Identical
R. 615 – Identical – except word “may” is substituted where for the word “shall” (FRE says shall) in the first clause of the first sentence
Opinions and Expert Testimony:
R. 701 – Identical
R. 702 – Identical; except MRE adds for the addition after the word “if” of the phrase “the court determines that recognized.”
R. 703 – MRE and FRE inconsistent: FRE provides “the facts or data in particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made know to him at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.”
R. 704 – Identical
R. 705 – Identical
R. 706 – Identical
R. 707 – MRE 707 taken from FRE 803(18) – but MRE adds the phrase “are admissible for impeachment purposes only.”
FRE 803(18) includes phrase “or relied upon by him in direct examination” – this is deleted from MRE 707 –and MRE 707 added the entire last sentence – “if admitted, statements may be read into evidence, but may not be received as exhibits.” --- FRE 803 is a hearsay rule MRE 707 is a derivation of this rule, in MI it is used for witness impeachment
Authentication and Identification:
R. 901 – (a) and (b)(1) through (9) are identical --- MRE 901(b)(10) is modified; under 901(b)(5) nothing contained in this rule authorized admission voice print evidence
R. 902 – Identical
R. 903 – Identical
Contents of Writings, recordings and Photographs:
R. 1001 – R. 1008 are all identical
R. 1101 – except MRE 1101(b)(3) the words “preliminary examination, detention hearing and in criminal cases” are deleted
MRE 1101(b)(5) is added and no equivalent in the FRE’s
Amendments also added presence of rule (b)(6) and (b)(7)
LEGALNUT.COM NOTICES AND DISCLAIMERS:
Copyright Property. This outline is © copyrighted 2006 by Legalnut.com (Site). This outline, in whole or in part, may not be reproduced or redistributed without the written permission of Site. A limited license for personal academic use is permitted, as described below or in Site’s Terms and Conditions of Usage page on this site. This outline may not be posted on any other website without permission. Site reserves the exclusive right to distribute, change or modify this outline in whole or in part.
This Outlines does not constitute legal advice and is not a replacement for obtaining legal counsel.
No Warranties as to Accuracy. Site has made efforts to provide the best possible outlines, but, Site MAKES NO WARRANTIES AS TO THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS OUTLINE. THIS OUTLINE IS PROVIDED TO YOU ON AN AS-IS BASIS. USE IT AT YOUR OWN RISK, AND DO NOT RELY ON IT FOR LEGAL ADVICE. IF YOU NEED LEGAL HELP, PLEASE CONTACT A LICENSED AND QUALIFIED ATTORNEY IN YOUR JURISDICTION. AS THIS OUTLINE HAS BEEN WRITTEN BY A LAW STUDENT, IT MAY CONTAIN INACCURATE INFORMATION.
Students Can Not Claim This Outline As Their Own. Furthermore, some law schools have policies which permit law students to bring their self prepared course outlines into final exams. If your law school has such a policy, you are expressly prohibited from claiming this outline as your own or from representing that any of the other outlines contained on this Site are your own unless you are the author of this outline. If you are not sure of your law school's policy, you should contact the appropriate staff at your school.
Notices and Procedures for Making Claims of Copyright Infringement. If you have a claim of copyright infringement against this outline or any other content of this Site, then please see this Site’s Terms & Conditions of Use page for procedures of notifying Site of any alleged infringement.
|< Prev||Next >|
Attorney jobs listings and sites with attorney salary information, attorney job search functions, and salaries by law firm.
Law school rankings show how competitive your lsat scores would be at top law schools in the US.
Law school admissions advice is available both at the LSAT forum and throughout the pre-law section, including LSAT prep options, law school personal statement help, LSAT score distributions and law school bar exam pass rates.
|Re:anonymous tip - criminal charge|
wetyj 16-02-12 06:43
habbaspilaw1 08-02-12 04:33
timeless 31-01-12 07:06
|Kobe Bryant to break the record was the...|
Salessessdfsd 29-01-12 04:18
|Re:no fault question|
Dingo 08-01-12 23:22
|Temporary US residence & w-2|
Jackie 08-01-12 23:12