How do the rules pertaining to evidence differ between federal judicial trials and administrative hearings?

What will be an ideal response?


Judicial proceedings are required to follow rules promulgated in the Federal Rules of Evidence. These rules are strictly enforced in jury trials and are designed to exclude untrustworthy, irrelevant, or unduly prejudicial evidence. For example, hearsay is excluded, subject to closely defined exceptions, to preserve the parties' right to confront and cross-examine their accuser. The Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply in administrative proceedings. Just as the rules are relaxed in bench trials, so too are they relaxed in administrative proceedings, relying on the ALJ or other presiding officer to fairly determine what is prejudicial and what should be admissible judging evidence by the "what it's worth" standard. Agencies are empowered to create their own exclusionary rules and often permit hearsay and other forms of evidence barred in judicial proceedings. Courts do generally hold agencies to the rule of residuum, which requires them to not base decisions entirely on what courts would consider to be inadmissible evidence.

Legal Studies & Paralegal

You might also like to view...

A judge or justice who does not agree with the majority writes a __________ opinion

a. Dissenting b. Concurring c. Majority d. Unanimous

Legal Studies & Paralegal

Case law research is utilized in both civil and ________ cases

Fill in the blank(s) with correct word

Legal Studies & Paralegal

Statutes at the federal level provide a list of titles and chapter headings in an index for ease of use

Indicate whether the statement is true or false

Legal Studies & Paralegal

Most of the provisions of BAPCPA went into effect for all cases pending on October 17, 2005, one hundred eighty days after enactment.

Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)

Legal Studies & Paralegal