DOCSLIB.ORG

5(3257 &2162/,'$7,21 $1' 5()250 2) $63(&76 2) 7+

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
5(3257 &2162/,'$7,21 $1' 5()250 2) $63(&76 2) 7+ 5(3257 &2162/,'$7,21$1' 5()2502)$63(&762) 7+(/$:2)(9,'(1&( (/5&) REPORT: CONSOLIDATION AND REFORM OF ASPECTS OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE Report Consolidation and Reform of Aspects of the Law of Evidence (LRC 117-2016) © Law Reform Commission 2016 35-39 Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland D04 A4EO T. +353 1 637 7600 F. +353 1 637 7601 [email protected] lawreform.ie ISSN 1393-3132 REPORT: CONSOLIDATION AND REFORM OF ASPECTS OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE Law Reform Commission’s Role The Law Reform Commission is an independent statutory body established by the Law Reform Commission Act 1975. The Commission’s principal role is to keep the law under review and to make proposals for reform, in particular by recommending the enactment of legislation to clarify and modernise the law. Since it was established, the Commission has published over 200 documents (Working Papers, Consultation Papers, Issues Papers and Reports) containing proposals for law reform and these are all available at www.lawreform.ie. Most of these proposals have contributed in a significant way to the development and enactment of reforming legislation. The Commission’s role is carried out primarily under a Programme of Law Reform. Its Fourth Programme of Law Reform was prepared by the Commission following broad consultation and discussion. In accordance with the 1975 Act, it was approved by the Government in October 2013 and placed before both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Commission also works on specific matters referred to it by the Attorney General under the 1975 Act. The Commission’s work on Access to Legislation makes legislation in its current state (as amended rather than as enacted) more easily accessible to the public in three main outputs: the Legislation Directory, the Classified List and the Revised Acts. The Legislation Directory comprises electronically searchable indexes of amendments to primary and secondary legislation and important related information. The Classified List is a separate list of all Acts of the Oireachtas that remain in force organised under 36 major subject-matter headings. Revised Acts bring together all amendments and changes to an Act in a single text. The Commission provides online access to selected Revised Acts that were enacted before 2006 and Revised Acts are available for all Acts enacted from 2006 onwards (other than Finance and Social Welfare Acts) that have been textually amended. i REPORT: CONSOLIDATION AND REFORM OF ASPECTS OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE Membership President: Mr Justice John Quirke, former judge of the High Court Full-time Commissioner: Raymond Byrne, Barrister-at-Law Part-time Commissioner: Donncha O’Connell, Professor of Law Part-time Commissioner: Ms Justice Carmel Stewart, judge of the High Court Part-time Commissioner: Tom O’Malley, Barrister-at-Law ii REPORT: CONSOLIDATION AND REFORM OF ASPECTS OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE Staff Law Reform Research Director of Research: Vacant at present Legal Researchers: Hanna Byrne, BCL (Intl) (NUI), MSc (Universiteit Leiden) Claire O’Connell, BCL, LLM (NUI) Hugh Dromey, BCL, LLM (NUI) Niall Fahy, BCL (NUI), LLM (LSE), Barrister-at-Law Owen Garvey, BA LLB (NUI), Barrister-at-Law Finn M. Keyes, LLB (Dub), LLM (UCL) Sarah Keating, BCL, (NUI), LLM (UL) Meghan McSweeney, BCL (Intl) (NUI) with Hist, LLM (Georgetown), Attorney-at-Law (NY) Jack Nea, LLB (NTU), LLM (NUI), Barrister-at-Law Access to Legislation Project Manager: Alma Clissmann, BA (Mod), LLB, Dip Eur Law (Bruges), Solicitor Deputy Project Manager: Kate Doran, BCL LLM (NUI), PhD (UL), Barrister-at-Law Administration Head of Administration: Deirdre Fleming Executive Officers: John Harding Pearl Martin Brendan Meskell Clerical Officer: Bríd Rogers Library and Information Manager: Órla Gillen, BA (DCU), MLIS iii REPORT: CONSOLIDATION AND REFORM OF ASPECTS OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE Principal Legal Researchers for this Report Kate Clancy LLB (Dub) Joseph Harrington LLB (Ling Franc) (Dub), BCL (Oxon), Barrister-at-Law Finn M. Keyes LLB (Dub), LLM (UCL) Kerri McGuigan LLB (Dub), LLM (UCL), Attorney-at-Law (NY) Helen Whately LLB, LLM (DUB), Barrister-at-Law iv REPORT: CONSOLIDATION AND REFORM OF ASPECTS OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE Acknowledgements The Commission would like to thank the following who provided valuable assistance: Academy of Experts, England Senan Allen SC Margot Barnes, Occupational Therapy Consultant Fiana Barry, Occupational Therapist Raymond Briscoe, Solicitor John G Cahill, Psychiatric Nursing Consultant and Safety Advisor Mr Justice Frank Clarke, judge of the Supreme Court Michael Collins SC Caroline Conroy Keeley, Solicitor, La Touche Training Roger Derham, Consultant Gynaecologist and Forensic Examiner Karl Dowling BL Remy Farrell SC Caitlín Ní Fhlaitheartaigh BL, Office of the Attorney General Forensic Science Ireland John T Garrett, John T Garrett & Associates Consulting Engineers Mary Rose Gearty SC Catherine Ghent, Solicitor Dr Liz Heffernan, School of Law, Trinity College Dublin David Holland SC Dr Niamh Howlin, Sutherland School of Law, University College Dublin Irish Translators’ and Interpreters’ Association Ciaran Joyce BL Charles Lysaght BL David Madden, Document Examination Ireland Hugh Madden BL Eoin Martin BL Marie-Claire Maney, Revenue Solicitor, Revenue Commissioners vi REPORT: CONSOLIDATION AND REFORM OF ASPECTS OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE Henry Matthews, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Darach McCarthy, Solicitor, Chair, Criminal Law Committee, Law Society of Ireland Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy, judge of the High Court Sergeant Patrick Joseph McCarthy, An Garda Síochána Declan McGrath SC Fachtna Murphy, former Garda Commissioner Northern Ireland Law Commission Sabrina O’Carroll, O Carroll Kinsella Nursing Consultants Feargal Ó’Dubhghaill BL, Office of the Attorney General Deirdre O’Gara BL, Office of the Attorney General Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O’Neill, former judge of the High Court Robert Purcell, Solicitor, Vice Chair, Criminal Law Committee, Law Society of Ireland Ms Justice Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, judge of the High Court Noreen Roche, Nursing Consultant and Safety Officer Society of Chartered Surveyors Dr Michael Stockdale, Northumbria Law School and Centre for Evidence and Criminal Justice Studies, Northumbria University, England Jack Tchrakian BL Eamonn Quinn, Unmarried and Separated Parents of Ireland Full responsibility for this publication lies with the Commission. vii REPORT: CONSOLIDATION AND REFORM OF ASPECTS OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE Table of Contents Table of Contents viii 6800$5< 1 CHAPTER 1 General Rules of Evidence: Relevance and Admissibility 11 A Relevance 11 (1) Establishing relevance 13 B Admissibility 14 Reliability 14 Agreement to admit 14 Determining admissibility 16 C Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evidence 17 D The Principle of Orality 20 E Classifying Evidence: Oral, Physical and Documentary Evidence 22 CHAPTER 2 The Rule Against Hearsay 24 A Introduction to Hearsay 24 (1) The rationale behind the rule against hearsay 25 B Defining Hearsay, and the Distinction between Original Evidence and Hearsay 29 The scope of the rule against hearsay 29 Implied assertions 33 Distinguishing hearsay and real evidence in electronic recordings 37 C Current Approach to Inclusion and Exclusion: Overview of the Law in Ireland 42 Statutory basis for admitting hearsay in interlocutory hearings 42 Restrictions on admission of hearsay in interlocutory hearings 43 Statutory provisions concerning the hearsay rule in criminal proceedings44 Limited statutory reform of the rule against hearsay in civil proceedings 45 (5) Hearsay in proceedings other than court proceedings 47 D The Commission's 1988 Report on Hearsay in Civil Cases 48 YLLL REPORT: CONSOLIDATION AND REFORM OF ASPECTS OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE E The Rule Against Hearsay in Civil Proceedings: Reconsidering the Recommendations of the 1988 Report 50 The constitutional and human rights dimension 52 Practical effect of abolition in civil Sroceedings in the United Kingdom 56 F Business Records and Documentary Evidence in Civil Proceedings 60 Bankers Books Evidence Acts 62 Criminal Evidence Act 1992 66 G Summary of Conclusions 77 CHAPTER 3 Exceptions to the 5ule $gainst +earsay 79 A Consideration of the Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay 79 Admissions and confessions 79 Res gestae 80 Dying declarations 83 Certain statements of persons now deceased 85 Testimony in former proceedings 90 Previous statements of witnesses 91 B Hearsay and Sentencing 98 C Evidence of Previous Criminal Convictions as Hearsay: Nevin v Nevin 100 (1) Reform 104 D Judicial Reform of the Hearsay Rule 108 Ireland 108 England 110 Scotland 110 Canada 111 United States 113 Australia 113 New Zealand 115 European Court of Human Rights 11 Conclusions 118 L[ REPORT: CONSOLIDATION AND REFORM OF ASPECTS OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE CHAPTER 4 Documentary and Electronic Evidence 119 A Definition of document and writing 119 Definition of document 119 The definition of writing 120 Reforming the definition of a “document” 120 B Admissibility and Authentication of Documentary Evidence 122 (1) Producing the original best evidence rule and the original document rule122 Other means of authenticating a document 126 Reform of rules on authentication 128 C Hearsay and Documentary Evidence 128 Public documents 129 Private documents 134 Business records 134 Documents generated in anticipation of litigation 134 Record made in the course of duty by a person now deceased 136 Ancient documents 136 D Documents Originating from or Intended for Use in another 137
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Use of Similar Fact in Criminal Proceedings: an Updated Framework
    Published on 11 December 2020 THE USE OF SIMILAR FACT IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: AN UPDATED FRAMEWORK [2020] SAL Prac 25 CHEN Siyuan LLB (National University of Singapore); LLM (Harvard). CHANG Wen Yee LLB candidate (Singapore Management University). I. Introduction 1 When confronted with the question of whether to admit similar fact for criminal cases, courts in Singapore are often faced with balancing potentially competing norms in the form of evidential expediency and fairness to the accused. Specifically, although similar fact may help establish the ingredients of an offence, there exists a real risk that any resulting conviction will be based heavily on the past behaviour or disposition of the accused and this potential weakness in inferential reasoning through indirect proof will – to use the word in its broadest sense – prejudice the accused.1 2 The 1996 Court of Appeal decision in Tan Meng Jee v Public Prosecutor2 (“Tan Meng Jee”) tried to address these concerns in detail. But even after almost 25 years, this case remains the only modern apex court decision on how the similar fact rule is to be 1 Taking a step back, one must bear in mind too features of the Singapore criminal justice process. As a matter of criminal procedure, the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) is generally considered to tilt more in favour of crime control. As a matter of substantive criminal law, potentially severe sanctions could follow upon conviction. As a matter of standard of proof, a strict insistence on corroboration is generally not required, and any proving of a defence must be done on a balance of probabilities, which is a higher standard than casting reasonable doubt.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence Act 1908
    Evidence Act 1908 Public Act 1908 No 56 Date of assent 4 August 1908 This Act was repealed, as from 1 August 2007, by section 215 Evidence Act 2006 (2006 No 69). See clause 2(2) Evidence Act 2006 Commencement Order 2007 (SR 2007/190). Contents Page Title 5 1 Short Title, etc 5 2 Interpretation 5 Competency of witnesses 3 Witness interested, or convicted of offence 7 4 Evidence of party, or of wife, husband, or civil union 7 partner of party, in civil cases 5 Evidence of accused and spouse in criminal cases 8 5A Wife of person charged with certain offences to be 10 competent witness for prosecution [Repealed] Privilege of witnesses 6 Communications during marriage [Repealed] 11 7 Privilege in suits for adultery [Repealed] 11 8 Communications to clergyman and medical 11 men [Repealed] 8A Questions tending to establish a debt or civil liability 11 Impeaching credit of witnesses 9 How far witness may be discredited by the party producing 11 him 10 Proof of contradictory statements of witness 12 11 Cross-examinations as to previous statements in writing 12 12 Proof of previous conviction of witness 12 12A Proof of convictions by fingerprints 13 12B Corroboration of evidence of accomplice not required 14 12C Witnesses having some purpose of their own to serve 15 Protection of witnesses 13 Cross-examination as to credit 15 Note This Act is administered in the Ministry of Justice 1 Reprinted as at Evidence Act 1908 1 August 2007 13A Undercover Police officers 16 13B Pre-trial witness anonymity order 19 13C Witness anonymity order for purpose
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Legislation (Wales) Bill
    Number: WG34368 Welsh Government Consultation Document Draft Legislation (Wales) Bill Date of issue : 20 March 2018 Action required : Responses by 12 June 2018 Mae’r ddogfen yma hefyd ar gael yn Gymraeg. This document is also available in Welsh. © Crown Copyright Overview This document sets out the Welsh Government’s proposals to improve the accessibility and statutory interpretation of Welsh law, and seeks views on the Draft Legislation (Wales) Bill. How to respond Please send your written response to the address below or by email to the address provided. Further information Large print, Braille and alternative language and related versions of this document are available on documents request. Contact details For further information: Office of the Legislative Counsel Welsh Government Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ email: [email protected] telephone: 0300 025 0375 Data protection The Welsh Government will be data controller for any personal data you provide as part of your response to the consultation. Welsh Ministers have statutory powers they will rely on to process this personal data which will enable them to make informed decisions about how they exercise their public functions. Any response you send us will be seen in full by Welsh Government staff dealing with the issues which this consultation is about or planning future consultations. In order to show that the consultation was carried out properly, the Welsh Government intends to publish a summary of the responses to this document. We may also publish responses in full. Normally, the name and address (or part of the address) of the person or 1 organisation who sent the response are published with the response.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence Act 2006
    Reprint as at 1 October 2008 Evidence Act 2006 Public Act 2006 No 69 Date of assent 4 December 2006 Commencement see section 2 Contents Page 1 Title 11 2 Commencement 11 Part 1 Preliminary provisions General 3 Act to bind the Crown 11 4 Interpretation 11 5 Application 16 Purpose, principles, and matters of general application 6 Purpose 17 7 Fundamental principle that relevant evidence admissible 17 Note Changes authorised by section 17C of the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989 have been made in this reprint. A general outline of these changes is set out in the notes at the end of this reprint, together with other explanatory material about this reprint. This Act is administered by the Ministry of Justice. 1 Reprinted as at Evidence Act 2006 1 October 2008 8 General exclusion 18 9 Admission by agreement 18 10 Interpretation of Act 18 11 Inherent and implied powers not affected 19 12 Evidential matters not provided for 19 12A Rules of common law relating to statements of 19 co­conspirators, persons involved in joint criminal enterprises, and certain co­defendants preserved 13 Establishment of relevance of document 20 14 Provisional admission of evidence 20 15 Evidence given to establish admissibility 20 Part 2 Admissibility rules, privilege, and confidentiality Subpart 1—Hearsay evidence 16 Interpretation 20 17 Hearsay rule 21 18 General admissibility of hearsay 22 19 Admissibility of hearsay statements contained in business 22 records 20 Admissibility in civil proceedings of hearsay statements 23 in documents related to applications,
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio Rules of Evidence
    OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE Article I GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101 Scope of rules: applicability; privileges; exceptions 102 Purpose and construction; supplementary principles 103 Rulings on evidence 104 Preliminary questions 105 Limited admissibility 106 Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements Article II JUDICIAL NOTICE 201 Judicial notice of adjudicative facts Article III PRESUMPTIONS 301 Presumptions in general in civil actions and proceedings 302 [Reserved] Article IV RELEVANCY AND ITS LIMITS 401 Definition of “relevant evidence” 402 Relevant evidence generally admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible 403 Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or undue delay 404 Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes 405 Methods of proving character 406 Habit; routine practice 407 Subsequent remedial measures 408 Compromise and offers to compromise 409 Payment of medical and similar expenses 410 Inadmissibility of pleas, offers of pleas, and related statements 411 Liability insurance Article V PRIVILEGES 501 General rule Article VI WITNESS 601 General rule of competency 602 Lack of personal knowledge 603 Oath or affirmation Rule 604 Interpreters 605 Competency of judge as witness 606 Competency of juror as witness 607 Impeachment 608 Evidence of character and conduct of witness 609 Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime 610 Religious beliefs or opinions 611 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation 612 Writing used to refresh memory 613 Impeachment by self-contradiction
    [Show full text]
  • COURSE TITLE: Law of Evidence II
    NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA SCHOOL OF LAW COURSE CODE: LAW446 COURSE TITLE: Law of Evidence II 1 COURSE TITLE: Law of Evidence II Course Code: LAW 446 Course Title: Law of Evidence II Course Writers: Iroye Samuel Opeyemi Esq. School of Law, NOUN Course Editor: Dr. (Mrs .) Erimma Gloria Orie School of Law, NOUN Dean School Of Law : Prof. Justus Sokefun School of Law, NOUN Course Coordinators: Iroye Samuel Opeyemi Mr Nimisore Akano (Mrs) Folashade Aare (Mrs) 2 LAW 446: LAW OF EVIDENCE II Table of Contents Module 1 Unit 1: Evidence of Character Unit 2: Opinion Evidence Unit 3: Similar Fact Evidence Module 2 Unit 1: Hearsay Unit 2: Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay I Unit 3: Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay Rule II Module 3 Unit 1: Estoppels Unit 2: Competency and Compellability Unit 3: Privilege Unit 4: Corroboration Module 4 Unit 1: Burden and Standard of Proof Unit 2: Documentary Evidence Unit 3: Confessions Unit 4: Judges Rule Unit 5: Examination of witness 3 MODULE I UNIT 1: EVIDENCE OF CHARACTER CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Objectives 3.0 Main Contents 3.1 Definition of Terms 3.2 Character of Witness 3.3 What Constitutes Evidence of Bad Character 3.4 When Character Evidence Becomes Relevant 3.5 Character Evidence in Civil Proceedings 3.6 Character Evidence in Criminal Proceedings 5.0 Conclusion 5.0 Summary 6.0 Tutor Marked Assignment 7.0 References/Further Readings 1.0 INTRODUCTION According to the Black’s Law Dictionary 5th edition, Character is the aggregate of the moral qualities which belong to and distinguish an individual; the general result of the one’s distinguishing attributes.
    [Show full text]
  • Crimes Act 1961
    Reprint as at 1 October 2012 Crimes Act 1961 Public Act 1961 No 43 Date of assent 1 November 1961 Commencement see section 1(2) Contents Page Title 23 1 Short Title, commencement, etc 23 2 Interpretation 24 3 Meaning of convicted on indictment 31 4 Meaning of ordinarily resident in New Zealand 31 Part 1 Jurisdiction 5 Application of Act 31 6 Persons not to be tried in respect of things done outside 32 New Zealand 7 Place of commission of offence 32 7A Extraterritorial jurisdiction in respect of certain offences 32 with transnational aspects 7B Attorney-General’s consent required where jurisdiction 34 claimed under section 7A 8 Jurisdiction in respect of crimes on ships or aircraft 35 beyond New Zealand Note Changes authorised by section 17C of the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989 have been made in this reprint. A general outline of these changes is set out in the notes at the end of this reprint, together with other explanatory material about this reprint. This Act is administered by the Ministry of Justice. 1 Reprinted as at Crimes Act 1961 1 October 2012 8A Jurisdiction in respect of certain persons with diplomatic 37 or consular immunity 9 Offences not to be punishable except under New Zealand 39 Acts 10 Offence under more than 1 enactment 39 10A Criminal enactments not to have retrospective effect 40 10B Period of limitation 40 11 Construction of other Acts 41 12 Summary jurisdiction 41 Part 2 Punishments 13 Powers of courts under other Acts not affected 41 Death [Repealed] 14 Form of sentence in capital cases [Repealed]
    [Show full text]
  • British Virgin Islands 21 Nigeria 88 Tim Prudhoe and Tim De Swardt Babajide O Ogundipe and Cyprian Nonso Egbuna Kobre & Kim Sofunde, Osakwe, Ogundipe & Belgore
    GETTING THROUGH THE DEAL Asset Recovery Asset Recovery Asset Contributing editors Jonathan Tickner, Sarah Gabriel and Hannah Laming 2016 2016 © Law Business Research Ltd 2015 Asset Recovery 2016 Contributing editors Jonathan Tickner, Sarah Gabriel and Hannah Laming Peters & Peters Solicitors LLP Publisher Law The information provided in this publication is Gideon Roberton general and may not apply in a specific situation. [email protected] Business Legal advice should always be sought before taking Research any legal action based on the information provided. Subscriptions This information is not intended to create, nor does Sophie Pallier Published by receipt of it constitute, a lawyer–client relationship. [email protected] Law Business Research Ltd The publishers and authors accept no responsibility 87 Lancaster Road for any acts or omissions contained herein. Business development managers London, W11 1QQ, UK Although the information provided is accurate as of Alan Lee Tel: +44 20 3708 4199 September 2015, be advised that this is a developing [email protected] Fax: +44 20 7229 6910 area. Adam Sargent © Law Business Research Ltd 2015 [email protected] No photocopying without a CLA licence. Printed and distributed by First published 2012 Encompass Print Solutions Dan White Fourth edition Tel: 0844 2480 112 [email protected] ISSN 2051-0489 © Law Business Research Ltd 2015 CONTENTS Global overview 5 Liechtenstein 70 Jonathan Tickner, Sarah Gabriel and Hannah Laming Matthias Niedermüller
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Witnesses
    Law 101: Legal Guide for the Forensic Expert This course is provided free of charge and is designed to give a comprehensive discussion of recommended practices for the forensic expert to follow when preparing for and testifying in court. Find this course live, online at: https://law101.training.nij.gov Updated: September 8, 2011 DNA I N I T I A T I V E www.DNA.gov About this Course This PDF file has been created from the free, self-paced online course “Law 101: Legal Guide for the Forensic Expert.” To take this course online, visit https://law101.training. nij.gov. If you already are registered for any course on DNA.gov, you may logon directly at http://law101.dna.gov. Questions? If you have any questions about this file or any of the courses or content on DNA.gov, visit us online at http://www.dna.gov/more/contactus/. Links in this File Most courses from DNA.Gov contain animations, videos, downloadable documents and/ or links to other userful Web sites. If you are using a printed, paper version of this course, you will not have access to those features. If you are viewing the course as a PDF file online, you may be able to use these features if you are connected to the Internet. Animations, Audio and Video. Throughout this course, there may be links to animation, audio or video files. To listen to or view these files, you need to be connected to the Internet and have the requisite plug-in applications installed on your computer.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:08-Md-01928-DMM Document 13882 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/13 14:21:40 Page 1 of 25
    Case 1:08-md-01928-DMM Document 13882 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/13 14:21:40 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-MD-1928-MIDDLEBROOKS/JOHNSON IN RE: TRASYLOL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION - MDL-1928 This Document Relates To: Alan Miller, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al., Case No. 09-81262 _________________________________________/ ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants’ (hereinafter, collectively, “Bayer’s”) Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) (DE 12395 in 08-1928 & DE 33 in 09-81262). Plaintiffs filed a Response (DE 12568 in 08-1928 & DE 35 in 09-81262), to which Bayer replied (12660 in 08-1928 & DE 36 in 09-81262). The Court has reviewed the pertinent parts of the record and is advised in the premises. For the reasons stated below I find that the Motion is due to be granted as to all Counts. I. Factual Background 1 In this case Plaintiffs are husband and wife, Alan and Vicki Miller. They are and were at 1 The following facts are either undisputed or established by evidence attached as Exhibits to either the Defendant’s Motion (“DEFEX”) or the Plaintiffs’ Response (“PLEX”). They shall be referred to DEFEX __ at__ – or PLEX __ at __ accordingly. Case 1:08-md-01928-DMM Document 13882 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/13 14:21:40 Page 2 of 25 all times relevant to the facts herein, citizens of the State of Illinois.2 On November 3, 2004, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • A Judicial Perspective on Opinion Evidence Under the Federal Rules, 39 Wash
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 39 | Issue 2 Article 4 Spring 3-1-1982 A Judicial Perspective On Opinion Evidence Under The edeF ral Rules George C. Pratt Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation George C. Pratt, A Judicial Perspective On Opinion Evidence Under The Federal Rules, 39 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 313 (1982), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol39/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE ON OPINION EVIDENCE UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES GEORGE C. PRATT* I. Introduction The purpose of this article is to focus upon some practical aspects of opinion evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The issues, sug- gestions, and problems posed are largely intuitive, and are derived primarily from trial experience. Implicit in the discussion are one major premise and two minor premises. The major premise is that Article VII of the Federal Rules of Evidence represents a realistic, practical, and desirable approach to the problems associated with opinion testimony. The two minor premises arise from application of Article VII in prac- tice and relate to the role of attorneys and trial judges in achieving the maximum benefits from Article VII.
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion and Expert Evidence Under the Federal Rules Herman Edgar Garner Jr
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Louisiana State University: DigitalCommons @ LSU Law Center Louisiana Law Review Volume 36 | Number 1 The Federal Rules of Evidence: Symposium Fall 1975 Opinion and Expert Evidence Under the Federal Rules Herman Edgar Garner Jr. Repository Citation Herman Edgar Garner Jr., Opinion and Expert Evidence Under the Federal Rules, 36 La. L. Rev. (1975) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol36/iss1/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OPINION AND EXPERT EVIDENCE UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES The Anglo-American judicial system has placed great emphasis on obtaining the best evidence possible to aid the trier of fact in the determination of disputed issues.1 Accord- ingly, courts, including those in Louisiana, traditionally banned receipt of opinion testimony, requiring instead more reliable factual testimony.2 However, strict application of the ban against opinion evidence has proved undesirable and has resulted in judicial exceptions to circumvent the rule.3 Con- gress recently codified most of these exceptions in the Fed- eral Rules of Evidence; 4 hence the new Rules should serve to admit more opinion evidence than traditionally was allowed, while still providing, safeguards to prevent any undue prej- udice that might result from its admission. The Rules reflect an analytical approach to admissibility that insists that opin- ion evidence be received only from one who is both trustwor- thy and knowledgeable, and that it be helpful to the trier of fact.5 The accuracy of opinion testimony additionally is vouchsafed by the relevancy requirements of the Federal Rules6 and by the opposing party's right of cross- examination.
    [Show full text]