PastPaperHero | Presentation of evidence - Requirement of personal knowledge

Learning Outcomes

This article explains the personal knowledge requirement for witnesses under the Federal Rules of Evidence and its role in presenting and challenging testimony at trial, including:

the scope and purpose of FRE 602 and how it interacts with general witness‑competence provisions, especially FRE 601 and 603;
methods for establishing or attacking a witness’s personal knowledge through foundational questions, offers of proof, and objections framed under FRE 104(b);
distinctions between personal knowledge, speculation, lack of perception, and hearsay, and how each gives rise to different exclusionary rules and answer choices on the MBE;
application of the personal‑knowledge requirement to lay witnesses, including when lay opinions are admissible under FRE 701 and when they become impermissible speculation;
the distinct treatment of expert witnesses under FRE 702–705, including how experts may rely on inadmissible facts or data consistent with FRE 703;
situations in which personal knowledge is presumed, limited, or unnecessary—such as admissions by a party‑opponent, business records, and recorded recollection doctrines;
practical techniques for spotting and articulating FRE 602 objections on the MBE, including recognizing when a question “calls for speculation” or when a witness is merely repeating second‑hand information;
common exam traps involving competence versus credibility, witnesses reading from reports they did not author, and mixed issues where both personal‑knowledge and hearsay objections are plausible.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand the rules governing the presentation of evidence, particularly the competence of witnesses, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

The basic competency rules for witnesses (FRE 601–603).
The requirement that non‑expert witnesses testify only from personal knowledge (FRE 602).
The relationship between personal knowledge and lay opinion testimony (FRE 701).
The different treatment of expert witnesses under FRE 703–705.
The distinction between lack of personal knowledge and hearsay.
Situations in which personal knowledge is not required (e.g., party admissions).
How to analyze personal‑knowledge objections and speculation objections on the MBE.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a witness may testify to a matter only if:
1. The witness is a party to the case.
2. The witness has personal knowledge of the matter.
3. The witness has reviewed the police report.
4. The witness is an expert.
Which of the following is NOT sufficient to establish a witness’s personal knowledge?
1. The witness saw the event occur.
2. The witness heard the statement directly.
3. The witness was told about the event by a friend.
4. The witness was present at the scene.
Which statement best describes the requirement of personal knowledge for expert witnesses?
1. Experts must always have direct, first-hand knowledge.
2. Experts may base opinions on facts they personally observed or facts made known to them.
3. Experts may only testify to matters they witnessed themselves.
4. Experts are exempt from any personal knowledge requirement.

Introduction

The Federal Rules of Evidence require that testimony be grounded in what the witness actually perceived, rather than guesswork or recycled information. On the MBE, many Evidence questions turn on whether a particular witness can properly testify to a fact. That almost always implicates FRE 602, the personal knowledge rule, and the related competency rules.

Key Term: Competence
A witness’s legal ability to testify. Under the FRE, almost everyone is competent to testify unless a specific rule (such as FRE 602 or 603) is violated.

Key Term: Personal Knowledge
Direct awareness of a fact or event, gained through a witness’s own senses (seeing, hearing, etc.), sufficient to support a finding that the witness perceived the matter.

Under FRE 601, every person is competent to be a witness unless the rules provide otherwise. FRE 602 is one of the main limits: it requires that a non‑expert witness may testify to a matter “only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.”

The Rule: FRE 602

FRE 602 states that a witness may testify to a matter only if there is evidence sufficient for a reasonable fact‑finder to conclude the witness perceived it. This is a low threshold: the judge does not decide whether the witness is truthful or accurate, only whether the witness could have perceived what they are about to describe.

The rule applies to all witnesses except that expert opinions are governed primarily by FRE 703.

Key Term: Evidentiary Basis
The preliminary showing (usually through brief questions) that establishes a witness’s ability to testify on a topic—here, showing that the witness personally perceived the facts.

Judges treat personal knowledge as a question of conditional relevance under FRE 104(b). If there is some evidence from which a jury could find that the witness has personal knowledge, the testimony comes in and the jury decides how much weight to give it.

Key Term: Conditional Relevance
Evidence that is relevant only if some preliminary fact is true; the judge admits it if a reasonable jury could find that preliminary fact.

Personal Knowledge and Competence

FRE 602 and 603 (requiring an oath or affirmation to testify truthfully) form the core of witness competence:

If a witness refuses to take an oath or affirmation, they are incompetent.
If a witness has no personal knowledge of the facts they are asked about, they are incompetent as to that subject.

Bias, interest in the outcome, and prior convictions go to credibility, not competence. On the MBE, answer choices that exclude a witness as “incompetent” usually test one of two things:

The witness lacks personal knowledge (FRE 602), or
The witness refuses to swear or affirm to tell the truth (FRE 603).

Anything else (e.g., “he’s the defendant’s brother”) is relevant to bias, not competence.

Application to Lay Witnesses

A lay witness must have observed, heard, or otherwise directly experienced the facts about which they testify. Testimony based purely on what someone else told the witness, or on documents the witness never saw or created, does not satisfy the personal knowledge requirement.

Key Term: Lay Witness
A non‑expert witness who testifies to facts—and sometimes simple opinions—based on their own perception, not on specialized knowledge.

Examples of proper lay personal knowledge:

“I saw the defendant drive through the red light.”
“I heard the defendant say, ‘I’m going to burn the building down.’”
“The floor felt slippery when I walked across it.”

Examples where personal knowledge is lacking:

“My friend told me the defendant ran the red light.”
“From reading the police report, I know the defendant was speeding.”
A bystander saying, “The defendant must have been texting” when they never saw a phone.

Key Term: Speculation
Testimony that goes beyond what the witness perceived and instead guesses about unknown facts or someone else’s mental state.

Lawyers often object, “Objection, lack of personal knowledge” or “Objection, calls for speculation” when the question would elicit testimony not grounded in the witness’s own perceptions.

Lay Opinions and Personal Knowledge

FRE 701 allows lay witnesses to give limited opinion testimony, but only if the opinion is:

Rationally based on the witness’s perception (i.e., personal knowledge),
Helpful to understanding the testimony or determining a fact in issue, and
Not based on specialized, technical, or scientific knowledge.

Common lay opinions that rest on personal knowledge include:

Speed of a vehicle (“about 40 miles per hour”).
Apparent sobriety (“he seemed drunk—slurred speech, staggered”).
Emotional state (“she looked terrified”).

The MBE sometimes tests this by asking whether the witness has the required evidentiary basis: if the witness was present and observed the behavior, they have personal knowledge sufficient for a lay opinion.

Application to Expert Witnesses

Expert witnesses are treated differently. Their opinions are governed primarily by FRE 702–705, not by FRE 602.

Key Term: Expert Witness
A witness qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education who may give opinions based on specialized knowledge.

Experts may base their opinions on:

Facts or data they personally observed (e.g., examining the plaintiff),
Facts admitted into evidence at trial, or
Facts made known to them before or at the hearing, if experts in the field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts (even if those facts are themselves inadmissible hearsay).

So, an expert does not need first‑hand knowledge of the event at issue. A medical expert can testify about the cause of an injury based solely on medical records and test results; a forensic accountant can testify based on business records reviewed in preparation for trial.

However, when an expert testifies to non‑expert facts (e.g., “I was in the room and saw the spill”), FRE 602 still applies to that part of the testimony: the expert, like any witness, must have personal knowledge to describe observed facts.

Basis for Testimony and Establishing Personal Knowledge

Before a witness may testify, the proponent must establish a basis showing the witness has personal knowledge. This is typically done through a few preliminary questions:

“Where were you on the night in question?”
“Could you see the intersection clearly?”
“Were you close enough to hear what was said?”

The witness’s own testimony can establish their personal knowledge. Other evidence (e.g., photographs showing the witness’s position) can also be used, but is not usually required.

If the evidentiary basis is missing or weak, the opposing party should object and force the proponent either to:

Ask more questions to establish personal knowledge, or
Abandon that line of testimony.

Distinguishing Personal Knowledge from Hearsay

Personal knowledge and hearsay are related but distinct concepts:

FRE 602 (personal knowledge) asks: Did this witness perceive the facts they are testifying about?
FRE 801–807 (hearsay) ask: Is this witness relating an out‑of‑court statement offered for its truth, and if so, is there an exclusion or exception?

Key Term: Hearsay
An out‑of‑court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

A single answer can violate both rules. For example:

“My neighbor told me the light was red.”
- The testifying witness has no personal knowledge of the light; they are repeating what someone else said (FRE 602 problem).
- The neighbor’s statement is an out‑of‑court assertion offered for its truth (hearsay problem).

Conversely, a witness can have personal knowledge without hearsay problems:

“I heard the defendant say, ‘I hate my boss.’”
- The witness personally heard the words (personal knowledge satisfied).
- If offered to show the defendant’s state of mind, the statement may be non‑hearsay or fall under a hearsay exception.

On MBE questions, make sure you know which rule is being tested. If the fact pattern emphasizes that the witness never saw or heard the event, think FRE 602. If the focus is on repeating someone else’s statements, think hearsay.

Exceptions and Special Cases

There are several important situations where testimony (or statements used as evidence) come in despite the speaker’s lack of personal knowledge.

Expert Testimony (FRE 703):
Experts may rely on hearsay or second‑hand data if experts in the field reasonably rely on such information. The expert must have personal knowledge of the data they reviewed (they actually read the report, saw the x‑rays, etc.), but not necessarily of the events described.
Admissions by a Party‑Opponent (FRE 801(d)(2)):
A party’s own statement, offered against that party, is not hearsay. There is no personal knowledge requirement for the declarant. A party can be held to their own statement even if they were guessing or misinformed when they said it.
Certain Hearsay Exceptions:
Some hearsay exceptions, like excited utterances or present sense impressions, assume the declarant perceived the event but do not demand detailed personal knowledge of every aspect. The declarant must have perceived something startling or occurring, but need not know all the surrounding facts.
Business Records and Recorded Recollection:
Under these exceptions, the person who made the record (or supplied the information) must have had personal knowledge at the time. The witness who authenticates the record at trial may not have personal knowledge of the event described in the record, only of the record‑keeping system.

Key Term: Present Recollection Refreshed
A technique where a witness uses a stimulus (usually a document) to jog their memory, then testifies from present memory rather than reading from the document.

Key Term: Recorded Recollection
A hearsay exception allowing a witness to read a prior record into evidence when the witness once had knowledge, made or adopted a record while their memory was fresh, and now cannot recall well enough to testify fully.

Both of these doctrines presuppose that the witness originally had personal knowledge, even if they now need help recalling it.

Worked Example 1.1

A witness is called to testify that a car ran a red light. The witness testifies, “My friend told me the car ran the red light.” Is this testimony admissible?

Answer:
No. The witness lacks personal knowledge; they did not see the light or the car themselves. The testimony also contains hearsay (the friend’s out‑of‑court statement offered to prove the car ran the light). The proper objection is lack of personal knowledge and hearsay.

Worked Example 1.2

An expert witness testifies that, in her opinion, a chemical caused the plaintiff’s illness. She did not treat the plaintiff but reviewed the plaintiff’s medical records and test results. Is this testimony admissible?

Answer:
Yes. Experts may base their opinions on facts made known to them at or before the hearing if experts in the field reasonably rely on that type of information. The expert has personal knowledge of the records she reviewed; she need not have personally observed the plaintiff’s exposure.

Worked Example 1.3

At trial for assault, a bystander testifies, “I wasn’t looking at them, but I heard someone scream, ‘Don’t hit me!’ and then a loud thud.” The defense objects for lack of personal knowledge. How should the court rule?

Answer:
Overrule the objection. The bystander has personal knowledge of what they heard—the scream and the thud—even though they did not see the altercation. FRE 602 does not require visual observation; any sense perception will do. Hearsay and other issues may still need to be addressed separately.

Worked Example 1.4

A police officer who did not investigate the accident reads aloud from another officer’s report: “The report says the defendant admitted he was texting when he crashed.” The defense objects that the officer lacks personal knowledge. What result?

Answer:
The objection should be sustained as to the officer’s testimony about the facts in the report. This officer has no personal knowledge of the defendant’s supposed admission or the accident; he is merely reading hearsay. The proper way to prove the admission is to call the officer who heard it, or to admit the report under a hearsay exception if applicable.

Worked Example 1.5

In a breach‑of‑contract case, the plaintiff testifies, “The defendant told me, ‘I never even read the contract; I just signed what my assistant put in front of me.’” The defendant objects: “He had no personal knowledge of whether I read it.” Is the objection valid?

Answer:
No. The plaintiff has personal knowledge of what the defendant said (he heard the statement himself). The statement itself is an admission by a party‑opponent, which does not require the declarant to have personal knowledge when making it. The objection conflates the declarant’s personal knowledge with the testifying witness’s personal knowledge.

Worked Example 1.6

A treating physician testifies, “In my opinion, the plaintiff’s back injury is consistent with having been rear‑ended last year.” The physician never saw the accident, but took the history from the plaintiff during treatment. The defense objects for lack of personal knowledge. How should the court rule?

Answer:
Overrule the objection. The doctor is an expert relying on facts reasonably relied upon by physicians (the patient’s medical history and examination). FRE 602 does not require the doctor to have personally seen the accident. Any hearsay issues are handled through the rules on statements for medical diagnosis and expert bases under FRE 703.

Exam Warning

On the MBE, look especially for:

Witnesses who are clearly repeating what others said (“My friend told me...”)—this is both a personal‑knowledge and hearsay problem.
Officers or corporate representatives testifying from reports they did not author.
Lay witnesses offering opinions without any described basis (“He was going 90 mph” when the witness never saw the car).
Answer choices that mislabel bias or credibility problems as “incompetence” rather than as issues for the jury.

If a witness never perceived the fact with their own senses, an objection under FRE 602 is likely correct unless an expert or exception rule applies.

Revision Tip

Always ask: Did the witness see, hear, or otherwise directly experience the fact? If not, the personal knowledge requirement is not met.

Also ask: Is the problem that this witness did not perceive the event (FRE 602), or that the witness is recounting someone else’s statement (hearsay)? Exam questions often test your ability to separate those issues.

Summary

All non‑expert witnesses must have personal knowledge of the facts they testify about (FRE 602).
Personal knowledge can be established by the witness’s own description of what they saw, heard, or otherwise perceived.
Personal knowledge is a low threshold question of conditional relevance for the judge; credibility is for the jury.
Lay opinions are permitted only when rationally based on personal perception and helpful to the jury.
Experts may base opinions on facts they personally observed or on facts and data made known to them, including hearsay, if experts reasonably rely on such data.
Party admissions do not require the declarant to have personal knowledge; the testifying witness must have personal knowledge of hearing the statement.
Testimony based on rumor, speculation, or merely reading other people’s reports is inadmissible for lack of personal knowledge unless another rule (such as an expert rule or hearsay exception) justifies its admission.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

FRE 602 requires personal knowledge for all non‑expert witnesses; lack of personal knowledge is a competence problem.
The judge admits testimony if a reasonable jury could find the witness perceived the matter; credibility is left to the jury.
Lay witnesses may testify only to facts (and simple opinions) they directly perceived.
Lay opinions must be rationally based on personal perception and cannot rest on specialized knowledge.
Experts may base their opinions on personal observation or on facts and data made known to them, including reasonably relied‑upon hearsay.
A witness’s basis for personal knowledge is usually established through brief preliminary questioning.
Personal knowledge and hearsay are distinct issues; a single answer may implicate both.
Party admissions can be used against the party even if the party lacked personal knowledge when speaking.
Recorded recollection and business records assume that the original source had personal knowledge when the record was made.

Key Terms and Concepts

Personal Knowledge
Competence
Evidentiary Basis
Conditional Relevance
Lay Witness
Expert Witness
Speculation
Hearsay
Present Recollection Refreshed
Recorded Recollection

Presentation of evidence - Requirement of personal knowledge