A witness is called to testify about a car accident they heard about from their neighbor, claiming that the neighbor described the accident in vivid detail. The opposing counsel objects, arguing the testimony lacks personal knowledge. Which of the following reasons would BEST explain why the objection should be sustained?
The testimony could confuse the jury with secondhand information.
The witness's account does not include technical expertise.
The witness did not directly observe the car accident.
The neighbor's description of the accident may be unreliable.
The best explanation for sustaining the objection is that testimony offered in a court of law generally requires the witness to have direct, personal knowledge of the event being testified to, as prescribed by the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE 602). Personal knowledge ensures the credibility and reliability of the testimony by restricting it to what the witness has directly observed or experienced. Here, the witness's testimony about the accident is based solely on what their neighbor said, not on their own observations. This makes the testimony inadmissible under the rules of personal knowledge. Other answers are incorrect because they either misapply the rules of evidence, focus on irrelevant factors, or incorrectly interpret the objection's basis.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does 'personal knowledge' mean in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is FRE 602 and how does it apply to witness testimony?