Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Bar Evidence > 2) Relevancy > Flashcards

2) Relevancy Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards
1
Q

401 relevance: def

A

evidence which tends to make the existence of any fact more or less probative than it would be w/o the evidence (ok just a piece of the wall)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

relevance: kinds

A

1) logical

2) legal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

logical relevance: def

A

re facts – probative value – some logical tendency to prove or disprove a fact of consequence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

legal relevance–def

A

inludes balancing policy factors – fairness + value of evidence (substantial remedial measures, offers to settle, offers to pay med expenses)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

relevance: gen rule 402

A

all relevant evidence is admissible (unless excluded by a rule)
evidence that is NOT relevant is NOT admissible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

403 balancing

A

relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by
(things)

generally, favors admission

thru eyes of factfinder, not D

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

403 balancing: things that can outweigh probative value

A

1) prejudicial effect
2) confusion of issues
3) misleading jury
4) undue delay
5) waste of time
6) needless presentation of cumulative evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

prejudicial effect: def

A

evidence invites the jury to make a dec on an improper ground

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

403: consciousness of guilt

A

relevant to show guilty mind, generally admissible (fleeing, threats, hiding, alias, refusing BAC)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

direct evidence: def

A

no inferences required

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

circumstantial evidence: def

A

inferences required

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

demonstrative evidence: def

A

prepared before case to assist the trier of fact

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

character evidence: def

A

person’s general propensity or disposition for honesty, peacefulness, violence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

ch admissible as

A

1) civil case–essential element
2) crim case–circumstantial evidence of conduct on a particular occasion
3) impeach credibility

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

ch evidence: civil cases: rule 404(a)

A

ch evidence is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity. Exception: character is “at issue,” aka an element of the COA, claim, or defense

where ch is “at issue,” can use ROSA (reputation, opinion + Specific Acts)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

ch: opinion: req

A

witness esatblish sufficient knowledge to form opinion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

ch: reputation: req

A

wit establish he is aware of reptuationof party int eh relevant community

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

ch evidence: civil: scenarios where ch is “at issue”

A

1) defamation (P’s ch)
2) child custody (both parents’ fitness for raising kids
3) negligent entrustment (entrustee)
4) neg hiring (employee)

NOT: assault, battery

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

ch evidence: crim cases: rule re D’s ch evidence 404(a)(1)

A

1) prosecution may NOT initially introduce evidence of D’s ch
2) testimony re pertinent good ch trait of D must be raised by D [reputation + opinion only]
3) THEN prosecution may rebut w reputation or opinion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

ch evidence: “pertinent” def

A

determined by what D is on trial for (violence/peacefulness, fraud/honesty)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

ch evidence: analysis

A
  • -check trait
  • -check form
  • -who’s offering + can they?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

ch evidence: crim: ways prosecution can rebut

A

1) cross-examine D’s ch wit. HERE SPECIFIC ACTS OK (this is just for impeachment–limiting instruction)
2) P can call its own wits to testify re D’s bad ch. (reputation + opinion only)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

ch evidence: “opening the door”

A

check what D exactly testified about
“I didn’t do it” = not opening the door (just fact based)
“I’m not a violent guy” yes ch and door is open now
–> D also puts his CREDIBILITY at issue by testifying, but this is a differnet rule

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

ch evidence: re ch of victim 404(a)(2)

A

1) D may offer evidence of V’s pertinent trait as circumstantial evidence that V was first aggressor (so D self defense)
2) once door open, prosecution can rebut w good ch of V (reputation, opinion only) OR/AND ch evidence re D! (reputation/opinon only)
(all: only pertinent trait)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

ch evidence: re ch of victim SPECIL RULE for homicide cases #1

A

1) if D offers FACT (not ch) evidence that D was first agressor, then
2) P can offer evidence of V’s good ch for peacefulness (but not of D’s ch)

26
Q

ch evidence: special rule #2

A

D can offer evidence of his AWARENESS of V’s ch for violence (reputation or SPECIFIC ACTS) for the limited purpose of showing D’s som (fear).

This is NOT ch evidence and doens’t open the door

27
Q

ch: 404(b): rule

A

ch evidence may be admissible if offered for a purpose OTHER THAN to show conduct in conformity w ch (propensity) – includes specific acts

generally offered by P, on rebuttal

28
Q

404(b) ok uses of ch evidence – mnemonic:

A

MIMIC KOP

29
Q

404(b) ok uses of ch evidence: list

A 
Motive
Intent
Mistake (absence of)
Identity (sig crime)
Common plan or scheme (usu 2+x)
Knowledge
Opportunity
Preparation
30
Q

404(b) MIMIC-KOP evidence: timing

A

can have occurred before, during, or even after date of offense

31
Q

406: habit: rule

A

Evidence of the habit of person or routine practice of org,
2) whether corroborated or not
3) and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses
4) is relevant to prove conduct in conformity w the habit
5) opinion or specific acts
ok testify to your own

32
Q

406: habit: trigger words

A

usually, often, frequently

prob not enough

33
Q

406: habit: negative habit evidence

A

yes admissible

34
Q

legal relevancy: basic def

A

otherwise relevant evience that is barred due to public policy

35
Q

legal relevancy: kinds

A

1) subsequent remedial measures
2) offers to settle
3) payment of med expenses
4) pleas + discussions
5) liability insurance

36
Q

subsequent remedial measures: 407: INadmissible to prove

A

negligence
culpable conduct
design defect
need for warning

37
Q

subsequent remedial measures: 407: yes admissible to prove

A

ownership or control
impeachment
feasibility of precaution (IF controverted) (in neg case ok)

38
Q

subsequent remedial measures: 407: def

A

must be SUBSEQUENT

39
Q

settlement offers 408: rule

A

evidence of an offer to settle a claim,

which is DISPUTED either as to validity or amount

is INADMISSIBLE to prove liability
*also can’t use as prior inconsistent st for impeachment

40
Q

settlement offers 408: exceptions

A

ok use to:

  • -show bias or prejudice
  • -negate contention of undue delay
41
Q

settlement offers 408: result

A

not severable so the whole convo, including admissions, is out!

42
Q

payment of meds 409: rule

A

evidnece of offering to pay medical bills is INADMISSIBLE to prove liability for an injury

severable, so admissions of fault can come in

even true if you’re in a dispute (tho dispute not needed)

43
Q

plea discussions 410: rule

A

plea + statements by D to prosecutor in plea negotiations are inadmissible vs D in a later proceeding

44
Q

plea discussion 410: applies to

A

1) pleas of guilty later withdrawn
2) pleas of nolo contendere
3) offers to plead guilty (sts during negotiations)

45
Q

plea discussion 410: does NOT apply to

A

sts to police (only prosecutors)

46
Q

plea discussion 410: exception

A

actual plea CAN be admitted:

1) as st by party opponent in subsequent civil or crim case or
2) to impeach, if D testifies

47
Q

liability insurance 411: rule

A

evidence that person was or was not insured is inadmissible to prove negligence or fault

severable from admissions of fault

48
Q

liability insurance 411: exceptions

A

ok evidence of insurance for other pruposes:

1) proof of agency/ownership/control
2) proof of bias or prejudice of wit

49
Q

liability insurance 411: sope

A
  • -limits of insurance coverage: NEVER admissible

- -pretrial dy insurance coverage: usu allowed

50
Q

sex offense cases: V’s past sexual beh 412: rule

A

in any civil or criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct

evidence offered to show alleged V’s

sexual beh, sexual predisposition or other sexual hx

IS EXLCUDED

51
Q

sex offense cases: V’s past sexual beh 412: exceptions: crim

A

1) consent
2) source of semen/injury/evidence
3) const required

52
Q

sex offense cases: V’s past sexual beh 412: exceptions: crim: consent

A

evidence re past acts with THIS D, which tend to show consent, is admissible (in crim case)

53
Q

sex offense cases: V’s past sexual beh 412: exceptions: crim: source of physical evidence/injury

A

(in a crim case)
evidence of assaults by other ppl admissible to prove that those assaults, not D’s alleged crime, could have caused injuries

54
Q

sex offense cases: V’s past sexual beh 412: exceptions: crim: const required

A

(crim case)
usu for impeachment
confrontation clause

55
Q

sex offense cases: V’s past sexual beh 412: exceptions: civil: reverse balancing

A

admissible if probative value substantially outweighs danger of:

  • -harm to any V
  • -unfair prejudice to any party
56
Q

sex offense cases: V’s past sexual beh 412: exceptions: civil: reputation

A

evidence re V’s reputation is admissible IF V has placed it in controversy

57
Q

sex offense cases: D’s ch: 413-414: rule: crim

A

in a crim case
where D is accused of child molestation or sexual assault:
SPECIFIC ACTS by D are admissible and may be considered as they bear on any relevant matter, inc D’s propensity to commit sex crimes

notice requirement

58
Q

sex offense cases: D’s ch: 415: civil

A

civil case re sexual assault or child molestation same rule – specific acts may be admitted

must give notice

59
Q

sex offense cases: D’s ch: 413-415: standard of proof

A

dnn prior conviction or arrest
–need preponderance of evidence

no req that the specific acts be prior to other acts

60
Q

sex offense cases: D’s ch: 413-415: vs 403

A

still subject to 403 so maybe inadmissible if ex. too gruesome or may confuse jury

but per 413-415, highly probative. so likely in.

Bar Evidence (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions