Navigating the legal system can be daunting, especially when it comes to understanding the rules governing evidence.
This article sheds light on the first six articles of the Michigan Rules of Evidence (MRE), providing a helpful summary for legal professionals, litigants, and anyone interested in gaining insights into how evidence is handled in Michigan courts.
Rule 101: Scope and Definitions
Firstly, MRE 101 establishes the scope of the rules, specifying that they apply to all proceedings in Michigan courts, with exceptions outlined in Rule 1101. It also clarifies key terms like “civil case” and “record,” ensuring consistent interpretation throughout.
Rule 102: Purpose
MRE 102 sets the guiding principle for interpreting the rules: fairness, efficiency, and truth-seeking. It emphasizes administering proceedings justly, minimizing unnecessary cost and delays, and ultimately, ensuring accurate outcomes.
Rule 103: Rulings on Evidence
This rule outlines how to preserve objections and offer proof. To challenge a ruling admitting evidence, a party must object promptly, state the specific reason, and offer a motion to strike. In case of exclusion, the party must inform the court of the evidence’s content through an offer of proof, unless already clear from the context.
Rule 104: Preliminary Questions
MRE 104 addresses situations where the judge must decide a preliminary question, such as witness competency or hearsay exceptions, before determining whether evidence is admissible. The rule allows both parties to present evidence on the preliminary issue, ensuring a fair and informed decision by the judge.
Rule 105: Limiting Admissibility
This rule acknowledges that some evidence, though relevant, might be prejudicial or confusing. MRE 105 empowers the judge to limit the admissibility of such evidence in various ways, like allowing only specific portions, instructing the jury, or imposing an “admonition” to disregard certain aspects. This ensures a balanced presentation of evidence that focuses on the relevant issues.
Rule 106: Remainder of or Related Writings
Finally, MRE 106 addresses situations where a party introduces part of a writing or recording. This rule grants the opposing party the right to introduce any other portion or related document that provides context and fairness. This prevents distortion and ensures the jury hears the complete picture.
Conclusion
These six initial rules of the MRE lay the foundation for a fair and efficient legal system in Michigan. By understanding their purpose and application, individuals can navigate the courtroom with greater confidence and contribute effectively to the pursuit of justice.
Important:
This article provides a simplified overview of MRE 101-106 for informational purposes only. It should not be interpreted as legal advice. When facing legal matters, always consult with a qualified attorney for professional guidance. It is suggested that you read the unsummarized rule. Here is the link to the Michigan Rules of Evidence Handbook
Have your rights been violated?
Have your driving priviledges been revoked?
Has your professional license been suspended?
Have you been charged with a crime?
Call our office to see if we can help
Komorn Law 248-357-2550
Related Articles
No Results Found
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
More Posts
Jury Selection In Marihuana Cases
A jury trial is fundamental to our democratic system of government. Every American citizen should embrace this responsibility by participating, and ensure justice prevails. by Michael Komorn I just picked a jury in a marihuana case, there were several perspective...
Planet Green Trees Radio Episode 149-MSC People v. Koon
The best resource for everything related to Michigan medical marijuana with your host Attorney Michael Komorn. Live every Thursday evening from 8 -10 pm eastern time. By Michael Komorn The Michigan Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion making a finding that...
Polygraphs Proven Unreliable, Used for Police Intimidation
Polygraphs are widely recognized as unreliable yet police still use them to elicit confessions. By Michael Komorn Many states don’t allow polygraph test to be admitted in court because they are unreliable. Their lack of reliability is widely recognized by criminal...
Arrests for DUI’s on the Rise
By Michael Komorn Arrests for DUI’s have been on the rise across Michigan. This trend could drastically increase as The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has called on state authorities to reduce the legal limit to 0.05 percent. Currently, all 50 U.S. states...
US District Court Judge rules police cannot enter a car without a warrant to facilitate a drug dog sniff
Federal Judge Applies GPS Ruling To Drug Dog Traffic Stop By Michael Komorn Last week, a judge with the US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia applied the precedent to the common police practice of “permeation” where a police officer enters a...
Drug Checkpoints: Unconstitutional
By Michael Komorn The Supreme Court ruled in City of Indianapolis V. Edmund that drug check points are unconstitutional. So what happens when you see one on the highway? Keep calm and carry on. Police, especially in the Mid-west, have been using drug check points as a...
Knowing When to Exercise Your Rights
Remember, even if you are doing nothing wrong, there are a number of different outcomes that can occur from a police encounter. The short list includes: 1) No action, no problems; 2) A warning or citation; 3) An arrest and/or criminal charges. Exercising your rights...
Why Police Lie Under Oath
Thousands of people plead guilty to crimes every year in the United States because they know that the odds of a jury’s believing their word over a police officer’s are slim to none. As a juror, whom are you likely to believe: the alleged criminal in an orange jumpsuit...
What Did I Just Get Charged With?
Below is a list of common drug offenses as defined by the State of Michigan. If it is your second offense, it is important you read statute 333.7413 below. 333.7413 Conviction of second or subsequent violation; penalty....
