There has been one person to "share" that post and it appears to be an out of state relative....so thinking/guessing that a relative probably posted that info? Could be way wrong, but just a hunch.
GUILTY AR - Beverly Carter, 49, Little Rock, 25 Sep 2014 - #11
- Thread starter KateB
- Start date
- Status
There has been one person to "share" that post and it appears to be an out of state relative....so thinking/guessing that a relative probably posted that info? Could be way wrong, but just a hunch.
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
Go new tablet for Christmas not sure if I like yet lol. There was a media article that said AL dad lives in Wynne it also told where his mom lived. Don't know how to copy paste yet.
Got call from Vinelink saying a hearing has been set for tomorrow Dec 30.
I haven't looked at the new docs yet, but I am surprised about having to have motion to compel for CL. AL has a legal right to depose her. Wonder if this will deem her a "hostile witness" ?
Got call from Vinelink saying a hearing has been set for tomorrow Dec 30.
I haven't looked at the new docs yet, but I am surprised about having to have motion to compel for CL. AL has a legal right to depose her. Wonder if this will deem her a "hostile witness" ?
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
I not sure if this will reply to jstkiddin but hope so.
I am thinking it may be those affidavits that were taken by the guards at Tucker when AL had his first attorney, who wrote a letter about them having his legal mail. Jmho
I am thinking it may be those affidavits that were taken by the guards at Tucker when AL had his first attorney, who wrote a letter about them having his legal mail. Jmho
I will be so very glad when I no longer have to see AL's ugly mug coming across my FB feed in news stories. There is an overload on my feed right now. I can only imagine how the poor Carter family must feel.
Totally and completely off the current topic, but I'm even annoyed at the singer Aaron Lewis' billboards I've seen in both Fayetteville and Little Rock! I saw one at the I-630/University interchange a couple of weeks ago and about ran off the road because it took a second for two for it to register in my brain that it was a different AL and he was just a singer trying to advertise a concert. Still, my first thought was "Geesh...I hope the Carter's don't have to drive by these stupid signs on a regular basis."
Totally and completely off the current topic, but I'm even annoyed at the singer Aaron Lewis' billboards I've seen in both Fayetteville and Little Rock! I saw one at the I-630/University interchange a couple of weeks ago and about ran off the road because it took a second for two for it to register in my brain that it was a different AL and he was just a singer trying to advertise a concert. Still, my first thought was "Geesh...I hope the Carter's don't have to drive by these stupid signs on a regular basis."
(You'll get the hang of the tablet...LOL...but, it didn't quote/reply to me. That said, I moved to the desktop when I copied/pasted/linked those things above. Ha!)
That's what I'm thinking! I think they put them up on purpose to try to prove some point about how they were able to get out of the chain of custody and therefore cannot be authenticated and must be thrown out. Is that a way crazy thought? There *has* to be some valid reason the lawyer has allowed those to stay up and this is the first slightly plausible thing I've been able to come up with so far. LOL
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
I think my fingers are too fat for this touch screen stuff like my laptop better so far lol.
The affidavits I was referring to we're in aallegedly in legal mail from AL to his attorney.
Right...but is the posting of the one of FB related to that somehow? Just a hunch. Weren't the ones he was sending to his attorney in the legal mail incident supposedly going to CL for her defense? I'm going with a wild guess that they told the same story.
The same drawing that AL had in the FB affidavit? I'm unable to see his posting...he must have it set to friends of friends or friends only.
beaglebrd
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Messages
- 548
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes, the part of the affidavit on FB with the tape. It shows some of the wording, about bugs getting into her eyes and then the last part shown in his photo is about the comforter. It is the same document. Shows a head with tape across and describes how he put six inch tape across her face, how he went inside to find a bag, but couldn't and then found a half a roll of tape.
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
Very interesting. So would CL lawyers be the Public Defender she had prior or the State?? JMHO I dont see how the state could be "lawyer" because if she doesnt follow through on her end of the plea deal, she will be taken to trial by the State. I dont see how they could keep the Def from deposing CL. Seems fishy to me. I want it all to be on the up and up as it should be and its also the law.
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
MOTION TO COMPEL CRYSTAL LOWERY TO SPEAK WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL
COMES NOW, Defendant, Arron Lewis, by and through counsel, James Law Firm, and for his
motion to compel Crystal Lowery to speak with defense counsel, states:
1. Defendant is charged with Capital Felony Murder in the death of Beverly Carter.
2. Defendant's co-defendant is Crystal Lowery.
3. Crystal Lowery accepted a plea agreement to testify against Defendant at the
upcoming trial.
4. Defendant is attempting to prepare for trial and part of trial preparation is
interviewing prospective witnesses.
5. The Rules of Criminal Procedure demand each party disclose information to the
opposing party so that witnesses can be interviewed prior to trial. "A criminal trial, like its civil
counterpart, is a quest for truth. That quest will more often be successful if both sides have an
equal opportunity to interview the persons who have the information from which the truth may
be determined." Gregory v. United States, 369 F.2d 185 (D.C. Cir. 1966).
6. Defendant has been denied the ability to interview Crystal Lowery by Lowery's
counsel.
7. The ability of the State to interview Ms. Lowery whenever it desires and even
have her brought to Pulaski County to meet with the prosecuting attorneys, while the defense
cannot even speak to her is a violation of Defendant's right to due process under the Arkansas
and U.S. Constitutions
COMES NOW, Defendant, Arron Lewis, by and through counsel, James Law Firm, and for his
motion to compel Crystal Lowery to speak with defense counsel, states:
1. Defendant is charged with Capital Felony Murder in the death of Beverly Carter.
2. Defendant's co-defendant is Crystal Lowery.
3. Crystal Lowery accepted a plea agreement to testify against Defendant at the
upcoming trial.
4. Defendant is attempting to prepare for trial and part of trial preparation is
interviewing prospective witnesses.
5. The Rules of Criminal Procedure demand each party disclose information to the
opposing party so that witnesses can be interviewed prior to trial. "A criminal trial, like its civil
counterpart, is a quest for truth. That quest will more often be successful if both sides have an
equal opportunity to interview the persons who have the information from which the truth may
be determined." Gregory v. United States, 369 F.2d 185 (D.C. Cir. 1966).
6. Defendant has been denied the ability to interview Crystal Lowery by Lowery's
counsel.
7. The ability of the State to interview Ms. Lowery whenever it desires and even
have her brought to Pulaski County to meet with the prosecuting attorneys, while the defense
cannot even speak to her is a violation of Defendant's right to due process under the Arkansas
and U.S. Constitutions
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
8. "The right to a fair trial is a fundamental liberty secured by the Fourteenth
Amendment." Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976).
9. Prosecutors have long been able to bribe witnesses with reduced sentences,
immunity, and even cash payments in exchange for assisting in prosecutions. See Ullmann v.
United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956); Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972); Hoffa v.
United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
10. Defendants have never been able to do any of the aforementioned and will be
prosecuted for additional crimes of witness bribery if they attempt to provide benefits for
testimony. See § A.C.A. 5-53-108.
11. Here, the imbalance has gotten to such an extreme it constitutes a violation of the
right to a fair trial. Not only has the State given Crystal Lowery a plea agreement in exchange
for her assistance in attempting to convict Defendant, but the State has involved this Court in
adopting an agreement that compels her full cooperation with the State and has not permitted the
defense counsel to even speak to her.
12. The State and Crystal Lowery involved this Court in the plea agreement when
they each appeared before this Court and proposed the plea agreement. This Court has the full
authority to rectify this situation and give Defendant a fair trial. See generally United States v.
Carrigan, 804 F.2d 599 (10th Cir. 1986) (discussing the power of the trial court to order
witnesses to speak with defense counsel).
13. Defendant is not requesting to be present when his counsel interviews Crystal
Lowery. Defendant is not requesting this Court to rule that the State is bribing a witness.
Defendant is simply asking this Court to rule that his counsel should have access to Crystal
Lowery because to do otherwise would permit the State to continue to expand its authority to
induce witness testimony and shield the witnesses from being a part of preparation by defense
counsel.
14. Defendant does not have any knowledge that the State is actually interfering with
defense counsel's ability to speak to Lowery; however, the State could easily make Lowery's
cooperation with defense counsel a part of her plea agreement and the State chose not to do so.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Arron Lewis, respectfully requests this Court order that
Crystal Lowery speak with defense counsel. If Lowery refuses, then this Court should prevent
her from testifying
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ William O. “Bill” James, Jr. https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=DERUZCMZ5Q64O4Q4QSE8RQC5HJ1P5I
Amendment." Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976).
9. Prosecutors have long been able to bribe witnesses with reduced sentences,
immunity, and even cash payments in exchange for assisting in prosecutions. See Ullmann v.
United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956); Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972); Hoffa v.
United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
10. Defendants have never been able to do any of the aforementioned and will be
prosecuted for additional crimes of witness bribery if they attempt to provide benefits for
testimony. See § A.C.A. 5-53-108.
11. Here, the imbalance has gotten to such an extreme it constitutes a violation of the
right to a fair trial. Not only has the State given Crystal Lowery a plea agreement in exchange
for her assistance in attempting to convict Defendant, but the State has involved this Court in
adopting an agreement that compels her full cooperation with the State and has not permitted the
defense counsel to even speak to her.
12. The State and Crystal Lowery involved this Court in the plea agreement when
they each appeared before this Court and proposed the plea agreement. This Court has the full
authority to rectify this situation and give Defendant a fair trial. See generally United States v.
Carrigan, 804 F.2d 599 (10th Cir. 1986) (discussing the power of the trial court to order
witnesses to speak with defense counsel).
13. Defendant is not requesting to be present when his counsel interviews Crystal
Lowery. Defendant is not requesting this Court to rule that the State is bribing a witness.
Defendant is simply asking this Court to rule that his counsel should have access to Crystal
Lowery because to do otherwise would permit the State to continue to expand its authority to
induce witness testimony and shield the witnesses from being a part of preparation by defense
counsel.
14. Defendant does not have any knowledge that the State is actually interfering with
defense counsel's ability to speak to Lowery; however, the State could easily make Lowery's
cooperation with defense counsel a part of her plea agreement and the State chose not to do so.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Arron Lewis, respectfully requests this Court order that
Crystal Lowery speak with defense counsel. If Lowery refuses, then this Court should prevent
her from testifying
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ William O. “Bill” James, Jr. https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=DERUZCMZ5Q64O4Q4QSE8RQC5HJ1P5I
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
At the Pretrial hearing in Nov, they Def asked some questions already about how they could prove that AL had set up various accounts (authenticate) . They were going to rely on a Statute have to go back and look which is was, but from what I got they were going to use CL on that. JMHO - :thinking:
PRE-TRIAL NOTICE OF EXHIBIT OBJECTIONS
COMES NOW, Defendant, Arron Lewis, by and through counsel, James Law Firm, and for his
pre-trial notice of exhibit objections, states:
It is well-known this Court prefers to deal with authentication, chain of custody, and
other issues of the like prior to trial. After being presented a list of exhibits, defense counsel has
the following preliminary objections to the proposed exhibit list.
Affidavit of Arron Lewis chain of custody/authentication
Text messages allegedly sent by Lewis authentication/best evidence rule/hearsay (if
they are not Defendant)
Text messages allegedly sent by Lowery authentication/hearsay
Letters to Lowery authentication/chain of custody/marital privilege
Emails allegedly sent by Lewis authentication/hearsay (if they are not Defendant)
Google records for StevenAdams2015@gmail.com authentication
Textme records authentication/hearsay (if they are not Defendant)
Medical Examiner Photographs - A.R.E. 403
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Arron Lewis, respectfully submits this notice concerning
pre-trial objections to States exhibit list. https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=NN7CKYJ0FR949TEWRVETQD7QSX6C7D
ETA what A.R.E. 403 (Arkansas Rules of Evidence) is
Rule 403. Exclusion Of Relevant Evidence On Grounds Of Prejudice, Confusion, Or Waste Of Time.
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
Associated Court Rules:
Arkansas Rules of Evidence
Group Title:
Article IV. Relevancy and Its Limits https://courts.arkansas.gov/rules-a...exclusion-relevant-evidence-grounds-prejudice
PRE-TRIAL NOTICE OF EXHIBIT OBJECTIONS
COMES NOW, Defendant, Arron Lewis, by and through counsel, James Law Firm, and for his
pre-trial notice of exhibit objections, states:
It is well-known this Court prefers to deal with authentication, chain of custody, and
other issues of the like prior to trial. After being presented a list of exhibits, defense counsel has
the following preliminary objections to the proposed exhibit list.
Affidavit of Arron Lewis chain of custody/authentication
Text messages allegedly sent by Lewis authentication/best evidence rule/hearsay (if
they are not Defendant)
Text messages allegedly sent by Lowery authentication/hearsay
Letters to Lowery authentication/chain of custody/marital privilege
Emails allegedly sent by Lewis authentication/hearsay (if they are not Defendant)
Google records for StevenAdams2015@gmail.com authentication
Textme records authentication/hearsay (if they are not Defendant)
Medical Examiner Photographs - A.R.E. 403
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Arron Lewis, respectfully submits this notice concerning
pre-trial objections to States exhibit list. https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=NN7CKYJ0FR949TEWRVETQD7QSX6C7D
ETA what A.R.E. 403 (Arkansas Rules of Evidence) is
Rule 403. Exclusion Of Relevant Evidence On Grounds Of Prejudice, Confusion, Or Waste Of Time.
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
Associated Court Rules:
Arkansas Rules of Evidence
Group Title:
Article IV. Relevancy and Its Limits https://courts.arkansas.gov/rules-a...exclusion-relevant-evidence-grounds-prejudice
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
I will have to go back and look, BUT I dont remember any phone records being "barred from court" (thrown out). I will be first to say I misspoke but I think this is some more of the irresponsible reporting. Grrrr
Filings: Arron Lewis won't claim insanity in Realtor's slaying
By John Moritz
This article was published today at 2:17 p.m.
<snip>
"Lewis' defense has already succeeded earlier this month of having multiple pieces of evidence — including phone records and items retrieved from a car — barred from court, though a judge rejected the defense's attempts to use marital privilege to block Lowery from testifying." http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2015/dec/29/aaron-lewis-changes-defense-case-realtors-killing/ :waitasec:
ETA: Cell Tower Pings are out, (but thats not phone records) but the per the Judges Order:
pg 2/29 The State has indicated that they do not intend to introduce expert testimony about cell
phone tower pings. This Motion is therefore granted' https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=W91IXRDASRGXJEZJK4QX4T3NOPNQ29
Filings: Arron Lewis won't claim insanity in Realtor's slaying
By John Moritz
This article was published today at 2:17 p.m.
<snip>
"Lewis' defense has already succeeded earlier this month of having multiple pieces of evidence — including phone records and items retrieved from a car — barred from court, though a judge rejected the defense's attempts to use marital privilege to block Lowery from testifying." http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2015/dec/29/aaron-lewis-changes-defense-case-realtors-killing/ :waitasec:
ETA: Cell Tower Pings are out, (but thats not phone records) but the per the Judges Order:
pg 2/29 The State has indicated that they do not intend to introduce expert testimony about cell
phone tower pings. This Motion is therefore granted' https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=W91IXRDASRGXJEZJK4QX4T3NOPNQ29
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
From Judges Order pg 3/29 https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=W91IXRDASRGXJEZJK4QX4T3NOPNQ29
Motion in Limine to Exclude Emails and Text Messages Allegedly Sent by Arron Lewis
The State has been put on notice that any evidence of this nature will require
authentication pursuant to Rule 901 of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence. Defendant will inform
this Court the morning of trial whether they object to specific exhibits of this nature in the State's
exhibit list. The State will be given an opportunity to lay a foundation for the introduction of any
disputed statement prior to trial, and this Court will make a ruling.
Motion in Limine to Exclude Emails and Text Messages Allegedly Sent by Arron Lewis
The State has been put on notice that any evidence of this nature will require
authentication pursuant to Rule 901 of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence. Defendant will inform
this Court the morning of trial whether they object to specific exhibits of this nature in the State's
exhibit list. The State will be given an opportunity to lay a foundation for the introduction of any
disputed statement prior to trial, and this Court will make a ruling.
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
Rule 901 of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence:
Rule 901. Requirement Of Authentication Or Identification
a) General Provision. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility [admissibility] is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.
(b) Illustrations. By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule:
(1) Testimony of witness with knowledge. Testimony of a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be.
(2) Nonexpert opinion on handwriting. Nonexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation.
(3) Comparison by trier or expert witness. Comparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated.
(4) Distinctive characteristics and the like. Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.
(5) Voice identification. Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker.
(6) Telephone conversations. Telephone conversations, by evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time by the telephone company to a particular person or business, if (i) in the case of a person, circumstances, including self-identification, show the person answering to be the one called, or (ii) in the case of a business, the call was made to a place of business and the conversation related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.
(7) Public records or reports. Evidence that a writing authorized by law to be recorded or filed and in fact recorded or filed in a public office, or a purported public record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, is from the public office where items of this nature are kept.
(8) Ancient documents or data compilation. Evidence that a document or data compilation, in any form, (i) is in such condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity, (ii) was in a place where it, if authentic, would likely be, and (iii) has been in existence 20 years or more at the time it is offered.
(9) Process or system. Evidence describing a process or system used to produce a result and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result.
(10) Methods provided by statute or rule. Any method or [of] authentication or identification provided by [the Supreme Court of this State or by] a statute or as provided in the Constitution of this State.
Associated Court Rules:
Arkansas Rules of Evidence
Group Title:
Article IX. Authentication and Identification
https://courts.arkansas.gov/rules-a...1-requirement-authentication-or-identifcation
Rule 901. Requirement Of Authentication Or Identification
a) General Provision. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility [admissibility] is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.
(b) Illustrations. By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule:
(1) Testimony of witness with knowledge. Testimony of a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be.
(2) Nonexpert opinion on handwriting. Nonexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation.
(3) Comparison by trier or expert witness. Comparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated.
(4) Distinctive characteristics and the like. Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.
(5) Voice identification. Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker.
(6) Telephone conversations. Telephone conversations, by evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time by the telephone company to a particular person or business, if (i) in the case of a person, circumstances, including self-identification, show the person answering to be the one called, or (ii) in the case of a business, the call was made to a place of business and the conversation related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.
(7) Public records or reports. Evidence that a writing authorized by law to be recorded or filed and in fact recorded or filed in a public office, or a purported public record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, is from the public office where items of this nature are kept.
(8) Ancient documents or data compilation. Evidence that a document or data compilation, in any form, (i) is in such condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity, (ii) was in a place where it, if authentic, would likely be, and (iii) has been in existence 20 years or more at the time it is offered.
(9) Process or system. Evidence describing a process or system used to produce a result and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result.
(10) Methods provided by statute or rule. Any method or [of] authentication or identification provided by [the Supreme Court of this State or by] a statute or as provided in the Constitution of this State.
Associated Court Rules:
Arkansas Rules of Evidence
Group Title:
Article IX. Authentication and Identification
https://courts.arkansas.gov/rules-a...1-requirement-authentication-or-identifcation
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
"Best Evidence Rule"
In the USA the best evidence rule is part of Article X of the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rules 1001-1008).[6] The rule specifies the guidelines under which one of the parties of a court case may request that they be allowed to submit into evidence a copy of the contents of a document, recording or photograph at a trial when the "original document is not available."[6][7] If the party is able to provide an acceptable reason for the absence of the original then "secondary evidence" or copies of the content in the original document can be admitted as evidence. The best evidence rule is only applied in situations where a party attempts to substantiate a non-original document submitted as evidence during a trial.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_evidence_rule
2013 US Code
Title 28 - Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Appendix (rules 1 - 1103)
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (rules 101 - 1103)
ARTICLE X. CONTENTS OF WRITINGS, RECORDINGS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS (rules 1001 - 1008)
View Metadata
Rule 1001 - Definitions That Apply to This Article
Rule 1002 - Requirement of the Original
Rule 1003 - Admissibility of Duplicates
Rule 1004 - Admissibility of Other Evidence of Content
Rule 1005 - Copies of Public Records to Prove Content
Rule 1006 - Summaries to Prove Content
Rule 1007 - Testimony or Statement of a Party to Prove Content
Rule 1008 - Functions of the Court and Jury
http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2013/title-28/appendix-title-28/1279/1346
In the USA the best evidence rule is part of Article X of the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rules 1001-1008).[6] The rule specifies the guidelines under which one of the parties of a court case may request that they be allowed to submit into evidence a copy of the contents of a document, recording or photograph at a trial when the "original document is not available."[6][7] If the party is able to provide an acceptable reason for the absence of the original then "secondary evidence" or copies of the content in the original document can be admitted as evidence. The best evidence rule is only applied in situations where a party attempts to substantiate a non-original document submitted as evidence during a trial.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_evidence_rule
2013 US Code
Title 28 - Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Appendix (rules 1 - 1103)
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (rules 101 - 1103)
ARTICLE X. CONTENTS OF WRITINGS, RECORDINGS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS (rules 1001 - 1008)
View Metadata
Rule 1001 - Definitions That Apply to This Article
Rule 1002 - Requirement of the Original
Rule 1003 - Admissibility of Duplicates
Rule 1004 - Admissibility of Other Evidence of Content
Rule 1005 - Copies of Public Records to Prove Content
Rule 1006 - Summaries to Prove Content
Rule 1007 - Testimony or Statement of a Party to Prove Content
Rule 1008 - Functions of the Court and Jury
http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2013/title-28/appendix-title-28/1279/1346
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
Hearsay
Rule 803. Hearsay Exceptions - Availability Of Declarant Immaterial.
https://courts.arkansas.gov/rules-a...803-hearsay-exceptions-availability-declarant
Rule 803. Hearsay Exceptions - Availability Of Declarant Immaterial.
https://courts.arkansas.gov/rules-a...803-hearsay-exceptions-availability-declarant
- Status