Rules of evidence

wherefore are Americas rules of evidence more restrictive than those established by other countries? Americas rules of evidence are more restrictive because unlike some countries we constitute makeupal protections that safeguard Individual unspoileds. An example of this would be the Supreme courts closing that a state rule requiring that a suspect wanting to bear insure In a criminal case must do so before the admission of any other defense testimony Is a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due run clause.The due process clause protects citizens of the united States from unfair and disorderly legal speaks, coupled with the right to be informed of the nature and charges in accusation against them among other privileges. With this in mind it can be easily concluded as to the exigency of the restrictive nature of the rules of evidence. Although America adopted the English system of evidentially rules, umpteen changes view as been do since that 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 or so(predicate) more uniformity and consistency to the legal system. The Federal Rules of evidence enjoin evidentially matters in all proceedings In the federal courts and they bring about a significant measure of uniformity In the federal system. regrettably there Is far less uniformity among the states. Only thirty-six jurisdictions have adopted evidence codes that model the Federal Rules of Evidence. Out of the fifty states nevertheless forty-two have adopted these rules completely or in part. Of the remain eight states, my home state of atomic number 31 is in this line up. around a week ago I had the opportunity to learn of this rootage hand.My attorney and I were preparing a witness list to give to the territorial dominion Attorney in a criminal case we have. He asked me to search the stat ute cited on the States witness list and tell him what it says about utilize a defendant as a witness. To my surprise this is what I learned. consistent to O. C. G. A. 17-16-1 (2010) the deflation of a witness line In a criminal proceeding Is as follows (2) Statement of a witness meansA) A compose or recorded argument, or copies thereof, do by the witness that is subscribe 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 recording 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 o f Evidence and it also excluded our defendant as a witness in her own defense. I stimulate to be ironic that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land that individual states are allowed to have laws that are contrary. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made, or which shall be made, on a lower floor the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land and the resolve 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 lift 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.