Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Next question is it true mrs martin that you have a

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: the scope of the direct, and I do it in every case unless it causes confusion." Issue: Did the trial judge's statement "I have the right to permit inquiry beyond the scope of direct examination and I do it in every case unless it causes confusion" violate the sentiment of 611(b)? Holding: The rule does not confer upon a federal judge "the right to permit inquiry beyond the scope of the direct in every case". General prescription is precisely the opposite...any right to counter the stated procedure is granted to the trial court only "in the exercise of discretion." To follow the practice announced by the trial judge in this case is not to exercise discretion; it is to use no discretion whatsoever. For the future, it may be that a showing of prejudice will not be necessary to obtain relief from this court where, as here, it is demonstrated that the trial court has failed to heed the congressional command. Notes: Federal Rule: Legal point here is, evidently the plaintiff's experts were called to testify on certain issues (favorably to the plaintiff... probably to the negligence point, but maybe not about the...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online