Running head: Rules of Evidence & Fraud Unit

Rules of Evidence & Fraud Unit

(Authors name)
(Institutional Affiliation)

Rules of Evidence

Rules of Evidence & Fraud Unit

One case of fraud that can be closely linked to the rules of evidence is Zippo
Manufacturing Company versus Rogers Imports, Inc. This legal suit revolved around the plaintiff
entity that sued the defendant organization for unfair competitive practices and trademark
infringement. The two corporations were competitors in the business of manufacturing cigarette
lighters that were wind-proof. The suing entity claimed that their competitor's products were
being brought by confused clients for repair as the customers could not differentiate between the
two manufacturers.
The company being sued responded to these allegations by carrying out research on the
level of confusion among consumers in the wind proof cigarette lighters market. The main issue
emerging from this case was whether the research conducted to determine the level of confusion
among consumers was admissible in a court of law as evidence (Zippo Manufacturing Company
v. Rogers Imports, Inc., 1963). The defending corporation was objecting the use of this research
because they were carried out in the consumers' homes as opposed to retail stores where they had
purchased the identical and confusing products. However, the court held at the end that the three
mini-surveys were admissible as evidence because they were not a hearsay based on word of mouth,
they were not only reliable but also sufficient, and that they reflected then prevailing state of the
consumers' minds.
In this particular fraud case, the Federal Rule of Evidence that applies is rule 703 that deals
with the bases of an expert. Under the bases of an expert federal rule, it stipulates that an expert

may use data obtained directly or facts that he or she is aware of to form an opinion regarding an
issue of concern. This means that professionals in a given discipline may reasonably depend on
certain data or facts in making a decision on a particular issue; and that this decision or expert
opinion is admissible even if the facts themselves may be inadmissible (Kuhne, 2006). It is a
delicate balancing act for the courts as the facts, or data thereof, may be disregarded, but the

Rules of Evidence & Fraud Unit

professional conclusion drawn from them is admissible as evidence in case proceedings. Federal
Rule 703 has been altered to acknowledge that professionals may use inadmissible facts to infer
an opinion, although the underlying facts will not be admissible by virtue of the expert opinion
being accepted as evidence.
The rule applies due to the fact that data is admissible and more satisfactory where a public
opinion poll is conducted to be used as evidence. This means that the court can be able to make a
decisive ruling based on the validity and authenticity of the methodology used as opposed to mere
hearsay. Under this Federal Rule of Evidence, a professional opinion on any facts or data is
admissible if it is obtained from three distinct sources. The first source is the direct and physical
observation of the subject in question by a qualified and competent expert. The second option is an
expert presentation during court proceedings, while the third one entails the presentation of facts to
the professional from outside the court. The three criteria form the basis of the rules of evidence
applicable to the aforementioned lawsuit.

Rules of Evidence & Fraud Unit

4
References

Zippo Manufacturing Company v. Rogers Imports, Inc. U.S. Dist. 137 U.S.P.Q. (Bloomerg Law,
1963).
Kuhne, C. C. (2006). A Litigator's Guide to Expert Witnesses. Chicago, Illinois: ABA General
Practice, Solo & Small Firm Section.