Trial judge did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) to a defendant accused of infringing plaintiff's patent, even if the court based that judgment on admission of excludable hearsay, because "the Federal Rules of Evidence do not generally apply when the judge is acting as a fact-finder because a judge can presumably exclude improper inferences," in Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. Rome Fastener Corp., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2010) (Nos. 2009-1102, 2009-1118)

FRE 803(22), and the facts essential for the criminal judgment could be admitted in the civil case; the trial court took steps to mitigate the potential for unfair prejudice under FRE 403, in U.S. ex rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert Intern. Const., Inc., _ F.3d _ (D.C. Cir. June 22, 2010) (per curiam) (Nos. 08-5390, 08-5393, 08-5391, 08-5394, 08-5392)

D.C. Circuit affirms admission of wiretap recordings, rejecting claims that the person duplicating the recordings had to listen to all of the tapes and a challenge to the chain of custody, in United States v. Celis, _ F.3d _ (D.C. Cir. June 18, 2010) (per curiam) (Nos. 07-3075, 07-3076, 07-3078)

In criminal securities fraud (pump and dump scheme) prosecution against defendant brokers of a securities firm, affirming there was no error in striking guilt-assuming hypotheticals which were “impermissible in the context of the government's cross-examination of a defendant's character witnesses”; noting no error in the trial court permitting the prosecution to ask “its own fact witnesses otherwise relevant questions that may have a guilt-assuming element” provided the questions were “plainly relevant and probative,” in United States v. Laurienti, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. June 16, 2010) (Nos. 09-50081, 07-50365, 07-50240, 07-50367, 07-50358)

In taxpayer dispute, Internal Revenue Service tax records, concerning tax lien notification, were admissible under the business records hearsay exception, under FRE 803(6), in Haag v. United States, 485 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007)

A First Circuit case addressed the issue of whether records maintained by the Internal Revenue Service may be admitted under the business records hearsay exception.Read more

In conspiracy to commit securities fraud prosecution, trial judge did not err by failing to designate a witness as an “expert” because the “determination that a witness is an expert is not an express imprimatur of special credence," given by the court. Rather, "it is simply a decision that the witness may testify to matters concerning 'scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge,'” under FRE 702, in United States v. Laurienti, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. June 8, 2010) (Nos. 09-50081, 07-50365, 07-50240, 07-50367, 07-50358)

In plaintiff's sexual assault civil rights action against a doctor who allegedly improperly touched the plaintiff during an emergency room examination, no error in excluding evidence that another patient of the doctor claimed that the doctor also improperly touched her during a postoperative exam; the evidence was not admissible despite FRE 415 because the evidence was confusing and more prejudicial than probative under FRE 403 in light of the medical differences between the plaintiff's and the witness' situations that might require a mini-trial, in Martinez v. Cui, __ F.3d __ (1st Cir. June 17, 2010) (No. 09-1471)

In drug conspiracy prosecution, while detective did not recall the events described in the transcript, the transcript of the recorded telephone conversation obtained by Dutch authorities was authenticated by the detective who prepared the record of the intercepted recording and her general practice in doing so, and was admissible as a past recollection recorded, in United States v. Rommy, 506 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. Nov. 5, 2007) (No. 06-0520-cr)

Rejecting defendant's contention that his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights were violated during his cocaine conspiracy trial; circuit discounts defendant's charge that the trial judge restricted the defendant's cross-examination of a witness regarding the witness's prior smuggling conviction because the defendant failed to show any error in sustaining the government's objections to the defense cross-examination of the witness or to show any other definite limit on defendant's cross-examination of the witness, in United States v. Corrales, __ F.3d __ (10th Cir. June 14, 2010) (No. 09-3259)

Under FRE 408, proof of the validity or invalidity of a “claim” cannot be made through use of evidence of the parties’ attempts to compromise the matter, however, the trial court erred in using a “rigid definition” of a “claim” when it admitted statements “in nature of” those “made during settlement negotiations” during the parties’ earlier discussions; the earlier discussions involved the same “claim” as that in the dispute currently at issue, so that materials produced in the earlier disputes’ settlement negotiations between the parties were not admissible; the error in admitting this settlement evidence was harmful, in Lyondell Chemical Co. v. Occidental Chemical Corp., __ F.3d __ (5th Cir. June 8, 2010) (No. 08-40060)