Also known as: Fed. R. Evid. 104 · Rule 104 · FRE 104 · Federal Rules of Evidence 104
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A procedural rule that assigns the court responsibility for deciding any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible. The court may consider any evidence, including otherwise inadmissible material, when resolving those questions, except that privilege rules remain fully applicable.
A procedural rule that assigns the court responsibility for deciding any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible. The court may consider any evidence, including otherwise inadmissible material, when resolving those questions, except that privilege rules remain fully applicable.
The government offered Lonardo's telephone statements against Bourjaily in a drug conspiracy trial. Bourjaily objected that the statements failed to qualify as co-conspirator admissions. The court examined the surrounding circumstances outside the jury's presence and determined the statements were made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
A standard that governs evidence whose relevance depends on the existence of another fact. The proponent must introduce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the connecting fact exists. Once that threshold is met the court may admit the evidence subject to later connecting proof.
Prosecutors charged Carla with embezzling cash from MetroMart nightly deposits. They offered ValueWorld records showing she had previously manipulated customer returns. The documents supplied enough detail for a reasonable juror to conclude Carla committed the earlier acts. The court admitted the records for the non-propensity purpose of showing absence of mistake.
A standard that governs evidence whose relevance depends on the existence of another fact. The proponent must introduce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the connecting fact exists. Once that threshold is met the court may admit the evidence subject to later connecting proof.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Harris made statements to police implicating Williamson in a drug transaction. Williamson objected that the statements were not truly against Harris's penal interest. The court conducted a preliminary hearing to isolate the precise portions that were genuinely self-inculpatory before deciding admissibility.
The IRS sought in-camera inspection of attorney-client documents to test the crime-fraud exception. Zolin objected that the government had not yet made any threshold showing. The court first evaluated whether the partial transcripts supplied a sufficient basis to justify reviewing the privileged material.
Plumer moved to dismiss the diversity action for improper service under state rules. Hanna argued that federal procedural rules controlled the method of service. The court resolved the preliminary choice-of-law question before reaching the merits of the case.
Officers searched Matlock's home after obtaining consent from a woman who claimed authority over the premises. Matlock later challenged the search on the ground that actual common authority had not been shown. The court held a hearing to decide whether the government had produced enough evidence of apparent authority to uphold the consent.
Yes. Rule 104(a) permits the court to consider any evidence, including hearsay, when resolving preliminary questions such as expert qualification, provided no privilege applies.
The proponent must introduce evidence sufficient for a reasonable juror to find the connecting fact. The court may admit the evidence subject to later proof of that fact.
No. The judge asks only whether a reasonable juror could find that the defendant committed the prior act. The jury then decides the weight and credibility of that evidence.
The opposing party may move to strike the evidence and request a limiting instruction. The initial admission does not become final until the connecting proof is supplied.
…agree that the existence of a conspiracy and petitioner's involvement in it are preliminary questions of fact that, under Rule 104, must be resolved by the court. The Federal Rules, however, nowhere define the standard of proof the court must observe in resolving these questions. We are therefore guided by our prior…