Rules of evidence

Why are Americas rules of manifest more(prenominal) restrictive than those established by opposite countries? Americas rules of evidence are more restrictive because strange some countries we have Constitutional protections that safeguard Individual rights. An example of this would be the Supreme courts determination that a state rule requiring that a defendant wanting to admit In a criminal nerve must do so before the admission of any other defense testimony Is a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.The due process clause protects citizens of the united States from unsportsmanlike and disorderly legal exploits, coupled with the right to be informed of the disposition and charges in accusation against them among other privileges. With this in mind it can be easily concluded as to the necessity of the restrictive nature of the rules of evidence. Although America adopted the English system of evidentially rules, many changes have been made since t hat time.Although the adoption of the Federal Rules of show up and the uniform Rules of Evidence has not embraced the simplicity that the drafters of the constitution may eave envisioned, they do bring about more uniformity and consistency to the legal system. The Federal Rules of evidence regulate evidentially matters in all proceedings In the federal courts and they bring about a significant measure of uniformity In the federal system. unfortunately there Is far less uniformity among the states. Only thirty-six jurisdictions have adopted evidence codes that regulate the Federal Rules of Evidence. Out of the fifty states only forty-two have adopted these rules completely or in part. Of the remaining eight states, my home state of tabun is in this line up. About a week ago I had the opportunity to learn of this first hand.My attorney and I were preparing a construe tend to give to the District Attorney in a criminal case we have. He asked me to research the jurisprudence cit ed on the States feel list and tell him what it says about using a defendant as a witness. To my surprise this is what I learned. Pursuant to O. C. G. A. 17-16-1 (2010) the deflation of a witness bidding In a criminal proceeding Is as follows (2) Statement of a witness meansA) A scripted or recorded dictation, or copies thereof, made by the witness that is signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the witness (B) A substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made by the witness that is recorded contemporaneously with the making of the oral statement and is contained in a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other arrangement or a transcription thereof or (C) A summary of the substance of a statement made by a witness contained In a memorandum, report, or other type of written document but does not Include notes r summaries made by counsel.Paragraph three of this statute is the statement that demonstrates Georgia is not homogeneous with the Federal Rules of Evidence and it also excluded our defendant as a witness in her own defense. I find to be ironic that the Constitution is the supreme impartiality of the agriculture yet individual states are allowed to have laws that are contrary. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in by-line thereof and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. With the understanding that states can nullify federal laws that they determine to be unconstitutional, as was the case in Oklahoma regarding the Affordable Care Act it is quite perplexing that Georgia along with seven other states find it unconstitutional to deny a defendant the right to testify in their own defense.