<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0" xml:base="http://federalevidence.com">
<channel>
 <title>Federal Evidence Review blogs</title>
 <link>http://federalevidence.com/blog</link>
 <description>The Federal Evidence Review is an electronic legal journal that highlights recent federal evidence cases and developments. In one convenient place, the Federal Evidence Review's monthly summary, analysis and insight keeps readers current on the latest developments in the law of evidence as determined by the federal courts.</description>
 <language>en</language>
<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/FederalEvidenceReview" /><feedburner:info uri="federalevidencereview" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><item>
 <title>Barring Evidence Of A "Collateral Source" And FRE 403</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FederalEvidenceReview/~3/NC8dgt1gQc4/barring-evidence-collateral-source-and-fre-403</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-post-image"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
            &lt;div class="field-item odd"&gt;
                    &lt;div class="filefield-file"&gt;&lt;img class="filefield-icon field-icon-image-jpeg"  alt="image/jpeg icon" src="http://federalevidence.com/sites/all/modules/filefield/icons/image-x-generic.png" /&gt;&lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/files/Railtracks.jpg" type="image/jpeg; length=12332"&gt;Railtracks.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;        &lt;/div&gt;
        &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;
In an FELA suit against defendant railroad for injuries suffered by a former employee whom the defendant alleged was only malingering, admitting evidence that the plaintiff was currently receiving disability benefits as part of his railroad retirement, because its probative value under &lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence#Rule403"&gt;FRE 403&lt;/a&gt; was not outweighed by its potential unfair prejudice, declining "to apply the rule against admitting evidence of ... compensation for injury from a source collateral to the defendant," (the "collateral source rule") in &lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2012/05May/Crowther.v.ConsolRail.pdf"&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Crowther v. Consolidated Rail Corp.&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, __ F.3d __ (1st Cir. May 18, 2012) (No. 11–1578)
&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;span class="read-more"&gt;&lt;a href="/blog/2012/may/barring-evidence-collateral-source-and-fre-403"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://federalevidence.com/blog/2012/may/barring-evidence-collateral-source-and-fre-403#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/190">Rule 403 Exclusion of Relevant Evidence - Prejudice</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 17:38:56 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Editor</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1492 at http://federalevidence.com</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://federalevidence.com/blog/2012/may/barring-evidence-collateral-source-and-fre-403</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>D.C. Circuit And The "Per Se" Admission Of Agency Reports</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FederalEvidenceReview/~3/LNRKMkQTB5U/dc-circuit-and-se-admission-agency-reports</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-post-image"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
            &lt;div class="field-item odd"&gt;
                    &lt;div class="filefield-file"&gt;&lt;img class="filefield-icon field-icon-image-jpeg"  alt="image/jpeg icon" src="http://federalevidence.com/sites/all/modules/filefield/icons/image-x-generic.png" /&gt;&lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/files/LOC_Reading.Room_.jpg" type="image/jpeg; length=6688"&gt;LOC_Reading.Room_.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;        &lt;/div&gt;
        &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;
In a failure to hire employment discrimination case against defendant federal library, D.C. Circuit affirms trial court's admission of "Factual Background" and exclusion of the remainder of an administrative report, including its conclusion that the alleged discrimination occurred; Circuit, deferring to the trial judge action, notes that with seven other circuits, the D.C. circuit rejects that recommendations of administrative bodies "are per se admissible," in 
&lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2012/05May/Ponce.v.Billingham.pdf"&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Ponce v. Billington&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, __ F.3d __ (D.C. Cir. May 18, 2012) (No. 11-5117) &lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;span class="read-more"&gt;&lt;a href="/blog/2012/may/dc-circuit-and-se-admission-agency-reports"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://federalevidence.com/blog/2012/may/dc-circuit-and-se-admission-agency-reports#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/190">Rule 403 Exclusion of Relevant Evidence - Prejudice</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2012 07:22:52 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Editor</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1491 at http://federalevidence.com</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://federalevidence.com/blog/2012/may/dc-circuit-and-se-admission-agency-reports</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>In Memory Of Those Who Served</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FederalEvidenceReview/~3/D1dQwEjrQ4s/memory-those-who-served</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-post-image"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
            &lt;div class="field-item odd"&gt;
                    &lt;div class="filefield-file"&gt;&lt;img class="filefield-icon field-icon-image-jpeg"  alt="image/jpeg icon" src="http://federalevidence.com/sites/all/modules/filefield/icons/image-x-generic.png" /&gt;&lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/files/Arlington_Memorial_Day.jpg" type="image/jpeg; length=6552"&gt;Arlington_Memorial_Day.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;        &lt;/div&gt;
        &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;&lt;center&gt;The Federal Evidence Blog returns&lt;/center&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;center&gt;Tuesday, May 29, 2012&lt;/center&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;center&gt;after Memorial Day, the federal holiday commemorating&lt;/center&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;center&gt;the sacrifices of&lt;/center&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;center&gt;those in the military service of our country.&lt;/center&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Memorial Day is celebrated on the last Monday in May.  &lt;em&gt;See&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2009/11-Nov/Federal_Holidays_Statute.pdf"&gt;5 U.S.C. § 6103&lt;/a&gt; (federal holidays). &lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://federalevidence.com/blog/2012/may/memory-those-who-served#comments</comments>
 <pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2012 04:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Editor</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1490 at http://federalevidence.com</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://federalevidence.com/blog/2012/may/memory-those-who-served</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Admitting The SEC Form 10-K Annual Report As A Business Record</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FederalEvidenceReview/~3/UQ3WVvecdCQ/admitting-sec-form-10-k-annual-reports-business-record</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-post-image"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
            &lt;div class="field-item odd"&gt;
                    &lt;div class="filefield-file"&gt;&lt;img class="filefield-icon field-icon-image-png"  alt="image/png icon" src="http://federalevidence.com/sites/all/modules/filefield/icons/image-x-generic.png" /&gt;&lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/files/SEC.Seal_.png" type="image/png; length=30528"&gt;SEC.Seal_.png&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;        &lt;/div&gt;
        &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;
In civil enforcement action, admitting &lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2012/05May/SECForm10-K.pdf"&gt;SEC Form 10-K&lt;/a&gt; Annual Report restating financial statements was a &lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence#Rule803"&gt;business record&lt;/a&gt; “as a report made at or near the time of the accounting review by those with knowledge of” the company books which was a “financial statement audit,” in &lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2012/05May/SEC.v.Jasper.pdf"&gt;&lt;cite&gt;S.E.C. v. Jasper&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, _ F.3d _ (9th Cir. May 15, 2012) (No. 10-17064) &lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;span class="read-more"&gt;&lt;a href="/blog/2012/may/admitting-sec-form-10-k-annual-reports-business-record"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://federalevidence.com/blog/2012/may/admitting-sec-form-10-k-annual-reports-business-record#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/223">803(6) Records of Regularly Conducted Activity</category>
 <category domain="http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/190">Rule 403 Exclusion of Relevant Evidence - Prejudice</category>
 <category domain="http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/47">Rule 702 Testimony by Experts</category>
 <pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 00:31:58 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Editor</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1489 at http://federalevidence.com</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://federalevidence.com/blog/2012/may/admitting-sec-form-10-k-annual-reports-business-record</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Whether A Translation Is A "Mere[] ... Conduit" For A Declarant's Statement</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FederalEvidenceReview/~3/VIGHMNnQ8BI/whether-translation-mere-conduit-declarants-statement</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-post-image"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
            &lt;div class="field-item odd"&gt;
                    &lt;div class="filefield-file"&gt;&lt;img class="filefield-icon field-icon-image-png"  alt="image/png icon" src="http://federalevidence.com/sites/all/modules/filefield/icons/image-x-generic.png" /&gt;&lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/files/NinthCircuitSeal.png" type="image/png; length=45406"&gt;NinthCircuitSeal.png&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;        &lt;/div&gt;
        &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;
In methamphepamine distribution trial, defendant's answers to custom inspectors' questions were not hearsay statements by it's interpreter, entitling the defendant under the &lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/constitution#AmendmentXI"&gt;Sixth Amendment&lt;/a&gt; to the right to cross-examine the translator under &lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2007/13-SCt/Crawford_v._Washington.pdf"&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Crawford&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/a&gt; because the statements at issue were "considered statements of the original declarant" having satisfied a four-factor test used in the Ninth Circuit to determine when a translator acts as merely a language conduit of the declarant, in &lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2012/05May/US.v.Romo-Chavez.pdf"&gt;&lt;cite&gt;United States v. Romo-Chavez&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. May 23, 2012) (No. 10–10424)
&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;span class="read-more"&gt;&lt;a href="/blog/2012/may/whether-translation-mere-conduit-declarants-statement"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://federalevidence.com/blog/2012/may/whether-translation-mere-conduit-declarants-statement#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/118">Rule 801(d)(2)(A) - Party’s Admission</category>
 <category domain="http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/73">Sixth Amendment - Confrontation Clause</category>
 <category domain="http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/214">Crawford</category>
 <category domain="http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/342">Dual Fact and Expert Law Enforcement Witness Issues</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 18:28:22 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Editor</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1488 at http://federalevidence.com</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://federalevidence.com/blog/2012/may/whether-translation-mere-conduit-declarants-statement</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Falling Short Of The Daubert Standard</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FederalEvidenceReview/~3/YmPqt6TYBQM/falling-short-daubert-standard</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-post-image"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
            &lt;div class="field-item odd"&gt;
                    &lt;div class="filefield-file"&gt;&lt;img class="filefield-icon field-icon-image-jpeg"  alt="image/jpeg icon" src="http://federalevidence.com/sites/all/modules/filefield/icons/image-x-generic.png" /&gt;&lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/files/ParadiseLostSatan.jpg" type="image/jpeg; length=5766"&gt;ParadiseLostSatan.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;        &lt;/div&gt;
        &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;
Even though trial courts have considerable discretion in performing the &lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2007/13-SCt/Daubert_v._Merrell_Dow_Pharma.pdf"&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Daubert&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/a&gt; gatekeeping role (including how to assess the reliability of an expert, what procedures to utilize, and the ultimate determination of reliability) if a court's determination on the admissibility of an expert opinion under &lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence#Rule702"&gt;FRE 702&lt;/a&gt; reflects an “off-the-cuff decision” with no “detailed” or “specific” findings on the record, an abuse of discretion is normally a reviewing court's conclusion, in &lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2005/10-October/Procter%26Gamble.v.Haugen.pdf"&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Procter &amp; Gamble Co. v. Haugen&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, 427 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. Oct. 19, 2005) (No. 03-4234) 
&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;span class="read-more"&gt;&lt;a href="/blog/2012/may/falling-short-daubert-standard"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://federalevidence.com/blog/2012/may/falling-short-daubert-standard#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/47">Rule 702 Testimony by Experts</category>
 <category domain="http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/213">Daubert</category>
 <category domain="http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/324">Expert Evidence</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 09:07:17 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Editor</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1487 at http://federalevidence.com</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://federalevidence.com/blog/2012/may/falling-short-daubert-standard</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Child's Family Therapy Statement Admissible As FRE 803(4) Statement For Medical Treatment</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FederalEvidenceReview/~3/XzkFemxbFUI/childs-family-therapy-statement-admissible-fre-8034-statement-medical-treatment</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-post-image"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
            &lt;div class="field-item odd"&gt;
                    &lt;div class="filefield-file"&gt;&lt;img class="filefield-icon field-icon-image-png"  alt="image/png icon" src="http://federalevidence.com/sites/all/modules/filefield/icons/image-x-generic.png" /&gt;&lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/files/FourthCircuitMap_3.png" type="image/png; length=19831"&gt;FourthCircuitMap.png&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;        &lt;/div&gt;
        &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;
In a homicide prosecution, admitting as statements for medical diagnosis and treatment under &lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence#Rule803"&gt;FRE 803(4)&lt;/a&gt; the answers by an eight year old victim to a social worker regarding the defendant's abuse, resulting in physical injuries; the family therapy participants' (defendant, victim and family members) "primary purpose" in consulting the social worker was to "develop a treatment plan" as part of a medical program offered by the defendant's employer, in &lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2012/05May/US.v.DeLeon.pdf"&gt;&lt;cite&gt;United States v. DeLeon&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, __ F.3d __ (4th Cir. May 15, 2012) (No. 10–4064)
&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;span class="read-more"&gt;&lt;a href="/blog/2012/may/childs-family-therapy-statement-admissible-fre-8034-statement-medical-treatment"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://federalevidence.com/blog/2012/may/childs-family-therapy-statement-admissible-fre-8034-statement-medical-treatment#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/127">Rule 803(4) - Statements For Medical Diagnosis or Treatment</category>
 <category domain="http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/349">Recorded Conversations Evidence</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 16:22:57 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Editor</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1486 at http://federalevidence.com</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://federalevidence.com/blog/2012/may/childs-family-therapy-statement-admissible-fre-8034-statement-medical-treatment</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>The Confrontation Clause and Admission Of Statements Involving A Non-Testifying Interpreter</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FederalEvidenceReview/~3/3oddnxvUq0g/confrontation-clause-and-admission-statements-involving-non-testifying-interpreter</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-post-image"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
            &lt;div class="field-item odd"&gt;
                    &lt;div class="filefield-file"&gt;&lt;img class="filefield-icon field-icon-image-png"  alt="image/png icon" src="http://federalevidence.com/sites/all/modules/filefield/icons/image-x-generic.png" /&gt;&lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/files/ConfCla.Scales_0_1.png" type="image/png; length=7517"&gt;ConfCla.Scales_0.png&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;        &lt;/div&gt;
        &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;
Ninth Circuit notes that the Confrontation Clause cases have not considered “the question whether, when a speaker makes a statement through an interpreter, the &lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/node/1071/#AmendmentVI"&gt;Sixth Amendment&lt;/a&gt; requires the court to attribute the statement to the interpreter”; the failure to call the interpreter to testify at trial did not violate the Confrontation Clause where nothing indicated that the interpreter served as “anything other than a language conduit” or had a motive to mistranslate, in &lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2012/05May/US.v.Hieng.pdf"&gt;&lt;cite&gt;United States v. Hieng&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, _ F.3d _ (9th Cir. May 11, 2012) (No. 09-10401) 
&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;span class="read-more"&gt;&lt;a href="/blog/2012/may/confrontation-clause-and-admission-statements-involving-non-testifying-interpreter"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://federalevidence.com/blog/2012/may/confrontation-clause-and-admission-statements-involving-non-testifying-interpreter#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/400">FRE 103(e) Plain Error12.01.11</category>
 <category domain="http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/73">Sixth Amendment - Confrontation Clause</category>
 <category domain="http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/34">Rule 604 Interpreters</category>
 <category domain="http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/348">Foreign Language Evidence</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 07:52:24 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Editor</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1485 at http://federalevidence.com</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://federalevidence.com/blog/2012/may/confrontation-clause-and-admission-statements-involving-non-testifying-interpreter</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Using Federal Jury Instructions For Discerning A Crime Of Dishonesty Under FRE 609(b)</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FederalEvidenceReview/~3/BHW7KSHEbA0/using-federal-jury-instructions-discerning-crime-dishonesty-under-fre-609b</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-post-image"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
            &lt;div class="field-item odd"&gt;
                    &lt;div class="filefield-file"&gt;&lt;img class="filefield-icon field-icon-image-png"  alt="image/png icon" src="http://federalevidence.com/sites/all/modules/filefield/icons/image-x-generic.png" /&gt;&lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/files/FifthCircuitSeal.png" type="image/png; length=42658"&gt;FifthCircuitSeal.png&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;        &lt;/div&gt;
        &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h3&gt; In prosecution for knowingly violating the Clean Water Act, under &lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence#Rule609"&gt;FRE 609(b)&lt;/a&gt;  impeachment evidence that a prosecution witness had been convicted of larceny  was properly excluded because the crime of larceny was not a crime of dishonesty, as is seen from consulting the relevant statutory language and the model circuit jury instructions regarding the charge, in  &lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2012/05May/US.v.Pruett.pdf"&gt;&lt;cite&gt;United States v. Pruett&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, __ F.3d __ (5th Cir. May 15, 2012) (No. 11–30572)
&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;span class="read-more"&gt;&lt;a href="/blog/2012/may/using-federal-jury-instructions-discerning-crime-dishonesty-under-fre-609b"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://federalevidence.com/blog/2012/may/using-federal-jury-instructions-discerning-crime-dishonesty-under-fre-609b#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/357">FRE 609(a)(2)</category>
 <category domain="http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/343">Jury Instructions</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 16:20:28 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Editor</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1484 at http://federalevidence.com</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://federalevidence.com/blog/2012/may/using-federal-jury-instructions-discerning-crime-dishonesty-under-fre-609b</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
 <title>Taking Judicial Notice Of Stock Prices (Part III)</title>
 <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FederalEvidenceReview/~3/YUiZ6P-8Ews/taking-judicial-notice-stock-prices-part-iii</link>
 <description>&lt;div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-post-image"&gt;
    &lt;div class="field-items"&gt;
            &lt;div class="field-item odd"&gt;
                    &lt;div class="filefield-file"&gt;&lt;img class="filefield-icon field-icon-image-jpeg"  alt="image/jpeg icon" src="http://federalevidence.com/sites/all/modules/filefield/icons/image-x-generic.png" /&gt;&lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/files/NYSE30622.jpg" type="image/jpeg; length=6269"&gt;NYSE30622.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;        &lt;/div&gt;
        &lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;
In reviewing dismissal of class action alleging breach of fiduciary responsibilities by trustee in stock option plan, circuit takes judicial notice of stock prices which were not alleged in the complaint under &lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence#Rule201"&gt;FRE 201&lt;/a&gt;, in &lt;a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2012/05May/Lanfear.v.HomeDepot.pdf"&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Lanfear v. Home Depot, Inc.&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, _ F.3d _ (11th Cir. May 8, 2012) (No. 10-13002)
&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;span class="read-more"&gt;&lt;a href="/blog/2012/may/taking-judicial-notice-stock-prices-part-iii"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Read more&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://federalevidence.com/blog/2012/may/taking-judicial-notice-stock-prices-part-iii#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/13">Rule 201 Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 16:51:05 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Editor</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1483 at http://federalevidence.com</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://federalevidence.com/blog/2012/may/taking-judicial-notice-stock-prices-part-iii</feedburner:origLink></item>
</channel>
</rss>

