Talk:Ultimate issue
Add topic | A fact from Ultimate issue appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 October 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
[edit]This page is largely incorrect. The concept of "ultimate issue" is not limited to expert testimony, and the rule against expert testimony as to ultimate issues of mental states is an exception to the broader rule that expert witnesses (and others) are free to testify as to all ultimate issues except mental states. This article treats the exception as the entire rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1301:A3EE:59:CEBD:143E:5C00 (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
World view?
[edit]Is this concept restricted to US law or does it apply to other systems? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
POV? Coatrack?
[edit]The language of the last two sentences of the Conclusions section seems awfully non-neutral to me. The article given for the section's reference is unabashedly opposed to Rule 704(b). Is this appropriate, or should there be some countering statements from a source which supports Rule 704(b)? Or should all the Rule 704(b) stuff be in its own article (e.g. does its presence here violate WP:Coatrack)?
(Not that I have any personal view either way regarding 704(b), as I had never even heard of it until encountering this article...) John Darrow (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I removed the last two sentences in Conclusions, per your objection, and removed the POV tag accordingly. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
McDonald section
[edit]The article cited does not say that the testimony excluded at the trial (which it specifically states was excluded on the basis of rule 403, not 704) would be allowed in if the trial were held today. It states only that 704b would not exclude that evidence. The article says nothing at all about whether the testimony would be excluded today, because any such conclusion would depend on whether the interpretation of 403 has changed, which is not addressed in the article.Rose bartram (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)