If "natural persons" can't be excluded from the court room..

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Total Litigator
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:17 pm

If "natural persons" can't be excluded from the court room..

Postby Total Litigator » Mon Jul 16, 2012 7:55 pm

under FRE 615, then who the hell can be? My understanding is that a natural person is a person, which is a pretty f'ing huge category of people.

If natural persons can't be excluded from the court room, then I am very confused as to whom FRE 615 is supposed to apply to... I think FRE 615 must be going right over my head and I am totally missing the point.

Any one know how to properly interpret and apply FRE 615? I'm studying for the bar and help would be much appreciated.

harborleaguemvp
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: If "natural persons" can't be excluded from the court room..

Postby harborleaguemvp » Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:00 pm

I briefly looked at this for some odd reason, I must be bored. But I am pretty sure this means that the court will not exclude a natural person if he is a party to the case. They can exclude a natural person if he is a non-party. So if a witness is sitting in the courtroom waiting for his turn to testify, the court may order him to sit in the hallway until it is his turn. I may be completely wrong, but its my two cents.

Total Litigator
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:17 pm

Re: If "natural persons" can't be excluded from the court room..

Postby Total Litigator » Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:02 pm

No you're right... I'm an idiot.

I missed the "PARTY who is a natural person part"

lol, I thought the rule just said that you can't exclude natural persons from the courtroom, and that just sounded way to broad lololol


Well it looks like I've outed myself as an idiot. *Facepalm*

For posterity's sake, I won't delete my original post.

User avatar
ben4847
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:38 pm

Re: If "natural persons" can't be excluded from the court room..

Postby ben4847 » Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:10 pm

Total Litigator wrote:under FRE 615, then who the hell can be? My understanding is that a natural person is a person, which is a pretty f'ing huge category of people.

If natural persons can't be excluded from the court room, then I am very confused as to whom FRE 615 is supposed to apply to... I think FRE 615 must be going right over my head and I am totally missing the point.

Any one know how to properly interpret and apply FRE 615? I'm studying for the bar and help would be much appreciated.


Corporations.

Total Litigator
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:17 pm

Re: If "natural persons" can't be excluded from the court room..

Postby Total Litigator » Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:25 pm

Rule 615. Excluding Witnesses




FRE Rule 615, in its entirety, states:

At a party’s request, the court must order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear other witnesses’ testimony. Or the court may do so on its own. But this rule does not authorize excluding:

(a) a party who is a natural person;

(b) an officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person, after being designated as the party’s representative by its attorney;

(c) a person whose presence a party shows to be essential to presenting the party’s claim or defense; or

(d) a person authorized by statute to be present.

User avatar
Perseus_I
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:24 pm

Re: If "natural persons" can't be excluded from the court room..

Postby Perseus_I » Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:32 pm

It would exclude corporations.

Unless Mitt Romney is the presiding judge.

User avatar
20130312
Posts: 3842
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:53 pm

Re: If "natural persons" can't be excluded from the court room..

Postby 20130312 » Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:38 pm

Perseus_I wrote:It would exclude corporations.

Unless Mitt Romney is the presiding judge.


Image

User avatar
Tanicius
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: If "natural persons" can't be excluded from the court room..

Postby Tanicius » Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:39 pm

Perseus_I wrote:It would exclude corporations.

Unless Mitt Romney is the presiding judge.



6.15(b) yo.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: houritsu, Kayak1277 and 5 guests