What if President Trump's Senate Impeachment Trial Were Conducted under the Federal Rules of Evidence?
Created on January 16, 2020
During the course of the House's Impeachment Inquiry, there has been some debate about whether the evidence introduced by either side is relevant, hearsay, or prejudicial. This program will analyze the evidence contained in the House majority and minority reports, the deposition transcripts and the public testimony under the Federal Rules of Evidence to determine what evidence would be admissible. The lecture will also delve into matters of trial strategy and arguments as to the weight of the evidence. The program, taught by criminal defense attorney Stephen L. Richards, is intended as a learning tool rather than as a political tract and takes no position as to whether Donald Trump should be impeached or removed from office.
- Apply key aspects of the Federal Rules of Evidence to the Senate Impeachment Trial
- Discuss the hearsay rule in this context, with a particular focus on admissions, coconspirator statements, and other crimes evidence
- Integrate trial strategy with knowledge of the rules of evidence
Gain access to this course, plus unlimited access to 1,500+ courses, with an Unlimited Subscription.Explore Lawline Subscriptions