Evidence in Michigan Courts: A Guide to Rules 201-202

KOMORN LAW

STATE and FEDERAL
Aggressive Legal Defense
All Criminal Allegations / DUI / Drugs
Since 1993

Michigan Rules of Evidence: A Guide to Rules 201-202

Understanding the Michigan Rules of Evidence is crucial for anyone involved in legal proceedings within the state.

This article focuses on two key rules: 201** (Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts)** and 202** (Judicial Notice of Law)**, providing a concise and informative overview of their purpose, scope, and application.

Rule 201: Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

This rule empowers the court to take certain facts, known as “adjudicative facts,” as true without requiring formal proof during a trial.

These facts must be:

  • Not subject to reasonable dispute: They are either universally accepted within the court’s jurisdiction or readily verifiable from reliable sources.
  • Examples: Commonly-known geographic features, population statistics, or widely-accepted scientific principles.

The court can take notice of these facts either:

  • On its own initiative: In situations where the fact is readily apparent and critical to the case.
  • At the request of a party: If the party provides sufficient information and allows opposing parties time to prepare.

Rule 201: Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

This rule empowers the court to take certain facts, known as “adjudicative facts,” as true without requiring formal proof during a trial.

These facts must be:

  • Not subject to reasonable dispute: They are either universally accepted within the court’s jurisdiction or readily verifiable from reliable sources.
  • Examples: Commonly-known geographic features, population statistics, or widely-accepted scientific principles.

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Have your driving priviledges been revoked?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

Rule 202: Judicial Notice of Law

Similar to Rule 201, this rule allows the court to acknowledge certain legal matters without requiring formal presentation of evidence. These matters include:

Law in force: This encompasses the common law, constitutions, and public statutes of all jurisdictions within the United States.
Private acts and resolutions: These are specific legislative documents passed by Congress or the Michigan Legislature.

Local ordinances and regulations: These are rules established by governmental subdivisions or agencies within Michigan.
Foreign laws: The court can take notice of foreign laws upon proper presentation of evidence.

The court may take notice of these legal matters either:

On its own initiative: In situations where the law is readily apparent and relevant to the case.

At the request of a party: If the party provides sufficient information and allows opposing parties time to prepare.

Key Differences between Rules 201 and 202:

Type of knowledge: Rule 201 deals with factual matters, while Rule 202 deals with legal matters.

Scope: Rule 201 applies to facts within the court’s jurisdiction, while Rule 202 has a broader scope covering national, state, local, and even foreign laws.

Onus of proof: For Rule 201, the burden of proof lies with the party requesting judicial notice to provide the necessary information. For Rule 202, the court may take notice on its own initiative, but parties can still object or challenge the accuracy of the legal matter.

Important:

This article provides a simplified overview of the Michigan Rules of Evidence 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.

The Michigan Rules of Evidence are subject to change over time. Always consult the latest official version for accurate information.

Here is the link to the Michigan Rules of Evidence Handbook. Check the footer for the latest update.

 

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

People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights

People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights

Court of Appeals of Michigan PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javarian CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 368736 Decided: June 27, 2024Before: Borrello, P.J., and Swartzle and Young, JJ. Introduction In the People v. Chandler case, the Michigan...

read more
Chinese-funded marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.

Chinese-funded marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.

Inside the Chinese-funded and staffed marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.During a farm inspection, New Mexico state special agents discovered an excessive number of cannabis plants in violation of state laws. Subsequent visits revealed dozens of underfed and...

read more
Seattle settles case involving – the rights of nature

Seattle settles case involving – the rights of nature

The Rights of NatureSeattle settled a lawsuit brought by the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe on behalf of salmon harmed by dams on the Skagit River. This is one of the first "rights of nature" cases in the US, and the tribe argued that the lack of fish passage measures violated...

read more
NY judge fines unlicensed cannabis shops $15 million

NY judge fines unlicensed cannabis shops $15 million

It's their corner now“This punishment should serve as a clear warning for all unlicensed cannabis stores in the state: we will enforce the law and shut down your operations,” state Attorney General Letitia James saidThe owner of seven unlicensed cannabis shops in New...

read more
When Cannabis Businesses Are No Longer Subject to IRS 280E

When Cannabis Businesses Are No Longer Subject to IRS 280E

IRS 280E and Cannabis BusinessesWhat is IRS Section 280E? Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code restricts businesses from deducting typical business expenses from their gross income related to the distribution of Schedule I or II substances per the Controlled...

read more
Vehicle Forfeiture in Canada – The Process of Taking

Vehicle Forfeiture in Canada – The Process of Taking

Thank You... and have a nice day eh!Disclaimer: We are not Attorneys in Canada.  This is an article of information obtained from various sources and presented here. We can only assume they are accurate.  If you ever find a reason to go to Canada and need a lawyer...we...

read more
Michael Komorn-Criminal Defense Attorney

About Your Attorney

Attorney Michael Komorn

Categories

Other Topics

Driving Under the Influence

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Michigan

Your Rights

Michigan Court of Appeals

Law Firm VIctories

Share This