Evid

R.Evid. 403 (emphasis added) (“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice ....”).

The Volokh Conspiracy » Error to Introduce Evidence of Defendant’s Intimate Relationship as Evidence of Motive to Lie for Covering for Her Lover? 2010

R.Evid. 702, that her methodology is reliable, and that her testimony “fits” the issues in this case.

The DI's Dishonest Attacks on Barbara Forrest - The Panda's Thumb 2005

Evid. 403 (emphasis added (“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....”

The Volokh Conspiracy » Error to Introduce Evidence of Defendant’s Intimate Relationship as Evidence of Motive to Lie for Covering for Her Lover? 2010

Evid. 501; the Eighth Amendment, and sometimes it’s proper to follow precedent even if you don’t agree with it.

The Volokh Conspiracy » A Questionable Taking in Milwaukee: 2009

R.Evid. 703 permits experts to rely on hearsay in expert reports; however, the hearsay statements present in Dr. Forrest’s report may be problematic because without more, we are unable to verify the accuracy of the statements at issue, nor can we determine whether the individual statements have been taken out of context.

The DI's Dishonest Attacks on Barbara Forrest - The Panda's Thumb 2005

Evid. 803 (6), 902 (11) or 902 (12) and Local Civil Rule 16.02 (D) (3).

Recently Uploaded Slideshows JaneRachelle 2009

Josephus is considered, it cannot "be believed that the religion, and the transaction upon which it was founded, were too obscure to engage the attention of Josephus, or to obtain a place in his history" ( "Evid. of Christianity," p. 73.

The Freethinker's Text Book, Part II. Christianity: Its Evidences, Its Origin, Its Morality, Its History Annie Wood Besant 1890

S Scgar's Baronagium, MS. m Stem, hujui Fam. fc Stow's Annals, p. 1 59. i Ex Evid.

Collins's Peerage of England; Genealogical, Biographical, and Historical 1812

Contrary to defendant's claim, he was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense when the trial court applied the rule of evidence requiring him to supply an adequate foundation (Evid.

CNET News.com 2009

Contrary to defendant's claim, he was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense when the trial court applied the rule of evidence requiring him to supply an adequate foundation (Evid.

CNET News.com 2009