Articles Tagged with Legal Intelligencer

Although hearsay evidence is generally prohibited, the definitional carve-outs and exceptions provide trial judges with the latitude to admit trustworthy evidence that would otherwise be excluded. Both the Pennsylvania Code and the Federal Rules of Evidence recognize such exceptions, but they approach their admissibility and use with distinct priorities and limitations.

In the October 17, 2024 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang writes, “A Word on Hearsay: Using Prior Statements Under Pennsylvania and Federal Rules.” Continue reading ›

Pennsylvania has unique procedures for raising and preserving issues for appeal after trial that could “surprise” many unsuspecting practitioners, especially those who do not practice regularly in the commonwealth.

In the July 18, 2024 Edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang writes, “Better Safe Than Sorry: Filing Post-Trial Motions in Pennsylvania.” Continue reading ›

Hypothetical questions can help facilitate conversations on judgments about the perceived likelihood or potential consequences of an event or an action. They can also help reveal hidden or flawed assumptions. Supreme Court justices, for instance, often use hypothetical questions to test the outer boundaries of what the advocate is asking the court to declare and of what the court may have to decide.

In the June 20, 2024 Edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang writes, “The Whole Truth: Addressing Hypothetical Questions to Lay and Expert Witnesses.” Continue reading ›