Talk:Res gestae

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Jurisdictional Bias

The first section is unclear which country's Rules of Evidence are referred to. The first statement may only refer to U.S. jurisprudence, as res gestae is still accepted in of parts Canada at least. Also, the syntax used is unclear whether it is the term or the rule that is discredited. Perhaps a citation would help. The section then discusses how it is used, but not where its use is discredited or no longer used.

"Felony" is also a country-dependent term and is not used in all Common Law-based jurisdictions.

The article clearly states, in the first sentence, that it refers to American jurisprudence. And as for the word "felony", it's an extremely common term that I am sure is used in all English-speaking (which would also be common-law based) jurisdictions. Captain Quirk (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the article shouldn't be confined to US jurisprudence. This is an important rule of evidence in many common law countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc). This could be rectified by making the introduction general and then making new sections to cover the Commonwealth nations. Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]