Also known as: FRE 104(a) · Fed. R. Evid. 104(a) · Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) · 104(a) · Rule 104
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural rule under which the court determines preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence. The court is not bound by the rules of evidence in making this determination except those concerning privilege.
Ricardo Rojas stands trial for embezzlement. The defense offers testimony from a coworker who observed key events. The judge conducts a hearing outside the jury and finds the coworker possesses sufficient personal knowledge and capacity to testify before allowing the testimony.
Rhea Reynolds claims attorney-client privilege over documents the government seeks. The judge orders an in camera inspection to decide whether the crime-fraud exception applies and determines the communications fall outside the privilege before allowing disclosure.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ryan Roberts faces drug charges. The government offers a codefendant's out-of-court statement implicating Roberts. The judge holds a hearing and finds by a preponderance that the statement was against the declarant's penal interest before admitting it.
Rita Russell is tried for conspiracy to distribute narcotics. The prosecutor offers statements by an alleged coconspirator. The judge determines by a preponderance that a conspiracy existed and that Russell participated before admitting the statements against her.
Renee Rogers sues a manufacturer after a workplace injury. She offers a mechanical engineer whose opinions rest on proprietary software. The judge holds a hearing outside the jury and finds the engineer possesses sufficient specialized knowledge and reliable methods to testify.
Robert Rivera moves to suppress evidence seized from his apartment. The government claims a roommate consented. The judge conducts a hearing and finds by a preponderance that the roommate had actual authority to consent before denying the motion.
The court decides preliminary questions about witness qualification under Rule 104(a). The judge makes this determination by a preponderance of the evidence and is not bound by the rules of evidence except those concerning privilege.
The court applies the preponderance of the evidence standard when resolving preliminary questions of admissibility or witness qualification under Rule 104(a). This ensures the technical and policy concerns addressed by the evidence rules receive due consideration before evidence reaches the jury.
Yes. Under Rule 104(a) the court is not bound by the rules of evidence when deciding preliminary questions except those concerning privilege. The judge may therefore review materials containing hearsay for the limited purpose of assessing an expert's qualifications.
No. For other-acts evidence offered for a non-propensity purpose the court applies a conditional relevance standard under Rule 104(b). The judge need only determine whether a reasonable juror could find that the defendant committed the prior act. A preponderance finding under Rule 104(a) is not required.
…declarant and the nonoffering party, and that the statement was made "during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy." Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) provides: "Preliminary questions concerning . . . the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court." Petitioner and the Government agree that the existence of a conspiracy and…