Hey guys, quick question on FRE 104.
Other than prior acts evidence, what are some examples of FRE 104(b)? Is most evidence FRE 104(a) if it's not prior acts? Is this the right way to think about this?
For example, someone declaring "He charged at her with a knife" is 104(a). But in my mind, I always incorrectly do 104(b) analysis: "This is only relevant if he actually charged at her with a knife. This is only relevant conditioned on the asserted fact being true. Therefore it is a 104(b) problem." This is wrong. But why?
Thanks in advance.
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], haus and 5 guests