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

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

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.