On Demand Audio

What if President Trump's Senate Impeachment Trial Were Conducted under the Federal Rules of Evidence?

(423 reviews)

Produced on January 16, 2020

Taught by
$ 99 Criminal, Discovery & E-Discovery, and Election, Campaign, & Political In Stock
Get started now

$299 / year - Access to this Course and 1,500+ Lawline courses


Course Information

Time 1h 30m
Difficulty Intermediate

Course Description

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.

Learning Objectives:

  1. Apply key aspects of the Federal Rules of Evidence to the Senate Impeachment Trial
  2. Discuss the hearsay rule in this context, with a particular focus on admissions, coconspirator statements, and other crimes evidence
  3. Integrate trial strategy with knowledge of the rules of evidence


Credit Information

After completing this course, Lawline will report your attendance information to {{ accredMasterState.state.name }}. Please ensure your license number is filled out in your profile to ensure timely reporting. For more information, see our {{ accredMasterState.state.name }} CLE Requirements page . After completing this course, {{ accredMasterState.state.name }} attorneys self-report their attendance and CLE compliance. For more information on how to report your CLE courses, see our {{ accredMasterState.state.name }} CLE Requirements FAQ .


Stephen Richards

Law Office of Stephen L. Richards

Areas of Practice

• Murder -- Homicide -- Death Penalty Cases

• Serious Felonies

• Drug / Weapons Cases

• Appeals -- Post-Convictions

• Sentencing -- Mitigation

• Civil Rights/1983

• Legal Education

• Legal Ethics

Litigation Percentage

• 100% of Practice Devoted to Litigation

Certified Legal Specialties

• Certified Lead Counsel, Capital Litigation Trial Bar, Illinois Supreme Court, 2001

Bar Admissions

• Illinois, 1985

• U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois, 2008


• Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, New York

  o J.D. - 1983

  o Honors: Order of Barristers, Moot Court

• University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois

  o B.A.

  o Honors: With Honors 

  o Major: History

Published Works

• Reasonable Doubt Redux, 34 John Marshall L. Rev. 495, 2001

• The Admissibility of Expert Testimony, American Bar Association, 2003

Representative Cases

• People v. Terry Griggs, 152 Ill.2d 1, 604 N.E.2d 257 (Ill. S. Ct. 1992)

• People v. Arthur King, 154 Ill.2d 217, 608 N.E.2d 877 (Ill. S. Ct. 1993)


• New Ideas for Jury Selection, Illinois Public Defender Association, 2007

• Capital Jury Selection, Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal, 2007

Honors and Awards

• Kutak-Dodds Award, Defender Prize, National Legal Aid and Defender Association, 2003

Professional Associations and Memberships

• Illinois Public Defender Association, President, 2006 - 2008

• Illinois Public Defender Association, Board Member, 2000 - Present

Past Employment Positions

• Office of the State Appellate Defender, Deputy Defender, 2000 - 2008

• Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender, Assistant Public Defender, 1989 - 2000


Michael F.

Some Quantum leaps and soooo much is still in the House Bunker that we have never seen or heard

Lourdes C.

This is over 2019 Impeachment Inquiry.

Roy C.

Interesting but not that useful.

Martin G.

really enjoyed it!

Bonnie B.

A lot of detail and analysis. Very interesting.

Peter O.

Good premise but, at times, confusing application

Susan F.

Interesting look at the impeachment process and how it could have been different. Sigh.

Frances M.


Brenda S.

Very interesting, non-political information

Russell A.

very interesting....

Elizabeth A.

Very thorough and fantastic class!

Karen A.

The best legal seminar ever--so original and lots of fun to watch.

Theis R.

Very thorough.

Charles C.

The best presentation I've heard on Lawline.

John T.

good speaker

James A.

Great course and content! Very informative!

John M.

This guy knows his stuff very well done! I really enjoyed it and learned much from it. Thank you! Professor!

Rebecca D.


Kasey S.

Interesting intellectual exercise and very timely!

Regina M.

Very interesting lecture. Excellent speaker.

Michael G.

Thanks for this timely piece

Pamela S.

So great! I have been wanting this content. A fellow political junkie taking a thought experiment with me. And refreshing my memory of the rules of evidence. Just great.

Tom N.

Topical and interesting

Savonala H.

Excellent use of the Federal Rules of Evidence!!!

George E.

Extremely well done.

Jeff R.

Great presentation. Thank you.

daniel w.

thank you!

Robin Y.

Timely, informative and interesting! The written materials provide a detailed timeline of the Ukraine scheme. Richards even analyzed the admissibility of news that broke the night before this webinar aired.

Joseph R.

Extremely interesting way to present the federal rules through events that are of high interest

Teresa P.

If said friends were interested.

Gary P.

fascinating and timely

Load More