evidence

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, habit evidence is defined as evidence of a repetitive response by a person to particular circumstances, characterized by particularity and frequency. Although the general rule is that propensity evidence is not admissible to prove conduct on a particular occasion, habit evidence is admissible as an exception to the general rule for the purpose of proving how someone would act or react in a particular situation at issue.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a witness must testify from the basis of his current recollection, he cannot read from a document. However, if a witness forgets something he at one time knew and had personal knowledge of, he may be shown a writing to refresh his memory.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a hearsay exception exists that allows a witness to read a writing to the jury if: (1) the witness once had personal knowledge of the writing; (2) if the witness now forgets the writing and showing the writing to the witness does not jog his or her memory; (3) the writing was either made by the witness or adopted by the witness; (4) the writing was made when the event was fresh in the witness’s memory; and (5)

A process used at trial after a witness's credibility has been attacked through impeachment to rehabilitate the witness's credibility. A witness is rehabilitated either by introducing evidence of the witness's good character for truthfulness and honesty, or by the introduction into evidence of a prior consistent statement made by the witness. Usually, a witness' credibility can only be rehabilitated after his or her credibility has been attacked.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a permissible method to authenticate a document. Under the rule, if if a document is (1) more than 20 years old; (2) is regular on its face with no signs of obvious alterations; and (3) found in a place of natural custody, or in a place where it would be expected to be found, then the document is found to be prima facie authenticated and therefore admissible.

Under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the court will allow evidence of specific acts of misconduct or prior crimes of a defendant not for the purpose of showing criminal disposition, but for the purpose of proving some relevant purpose other than disposition. The acronym MIMIC identifies relevant purposes for admitting such evidence- Motive, Intent, Mistake, Identity, or Common scheme or plan.

Under Rule 106 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, when part of a writing or recorded statement is introduced, an adverse party may require introduction of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with the writing or recorded statement originally introduced. This additional evidence is called explanatory evidence, and its purpose is to qualify, explain or put in context the original piece of introduced evidence.

A repair or a change made after an accident has occurred which could have prevented the accident. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, although subsequent remedial measures cannot be used to prove a party's wrongdoing or culpable conduct, evidence of a subsequent remedial measure can be admissible for some other relevant purpose, such as to prove ownership, or control, or that it was possible to have prevented the accident with safer conditions, if one of these matters is at issue.

In trial practice, the process by which a party attempting to have some sort of evidence admitted at trial must provide sufficient evidence so that a reasonable juror can conclude that the evidence the party seeks to admit is what that party claims it to be. The process of authentication is often referred to as "laying a foundation" for the evidence desired to be admitted at trial. There are several different methods that can be used to authenticate evidence, including testimony by a witness with personal knowledge on the authenticity of the evidence.

Evidence that has some tendency to prove or disprove a particular disputed fact.