During a federal trial for fraud, the judge decides to exclude certain financial records presented by the prosecution, arguing they were obtained improperly. The defense contends that the judge should have allowed the jury to assess the relevance of these records. Which statement best describes the scope of review for the judge and jury in this scenario?
The judge can admit evidence, but the jury has the final say on its relevance.
The jury can decide to admit or exclude evidence if the judge excludes it initially.
Both the judge and the jury must agree on whether evidence is admissible.
The judge rules on the admissibility of evidence, while the jury determines the facts of the case.
The judge has the authority to rule on the admissibility of evidence as a matter of law, and such decisions are not subject to the jury's discretion. The jury is responsible for determining the facts based on the evidence admitted by the judge.
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 it mean for a judge to rule on the admissibility of evidence?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What role does the jury play in determining facts during a trial?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why can't the jury determine whether evidence is admissible?