Are there any differences between the rules of evidence in a traditional court and in a securities arbitration hearing?

Yes, there are differences between the rules of evidence in a traditional court and in a securities arbitration hearing. In a traditional court, the rules of evidence are more strict, allowing only evidence that is relevant and reliable to be used by the court. They are also restrictive, meaning that there are certain kinds of evidence that are not allowed in court. In securities arbitration hearings, the rules of evidence are less restrictive and more flexible. This allows for a greater variety of evidence to be used. For example, hearsay evidence is allowed in securities arbitration hearings, whereas it is not allowed in a traditional court. This type of evidence is more difficult to challenge and test, but it is seen as a necessary tool to get at the truth. Additionally, evidence that has been collected from outside sources such as public records or press reports can be used in securities arbitration hearings, whereas it would be inadmissible in traditional court. Thus, the rules of evidence in securities arbitration hearings are less restrictive than they are in a traditional court, allowing for a greater variety of evidence to be used.

Related FAQs

Are there any differences between the rules of evidence in a traditional court and in a securities arbitration hearing?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts