Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Dr torega allowed to testify that in his opinion she

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: t otherwise inadmissible hearsay. "That's inadmissible hearsay. No problem, we will just get an expert to base an opinion on it." This started happening often so they had to amend the rule to require proponents of the evidence to prove that the probative value of the evidence outweighs the prejudice. So 2000 amendment is pointed to the abuse of using an expert as a hearsay conduit. If you ask the question: In the Arkansas case Schell was presented under the current federal rule, would that change the outcome? Wellborn says clearly not no abuse here, legitimate expert legitimately relying on his hearsay investigation, probative value could likely be shown to outweigh the prejudicial value. MAIN POINT: In order to admit otherwise inadmissible evidence as the basis of expert opinion, counsel seeking to admit the evidence must prove that it's probative value w/ respect to understanding the expert's opinion, outweighs the prejudice to the jury (That the jury will consider the inadmissible evidence for their truth)! T...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online