Actually important Stuff. BEST KNOW THIS BOI

Question 1

401

Answer 1

Test for relevant evidence

Question 2

403

Answer 2

Excluding relevant evidence for prejudice confusion waste of time, or cumulative evidence.

Question 3

404

Answer 3

Character Evidence

Question 4

405

Answer 4

Methods Of Proving Character. (exceptions to 404)

Question 5

406

Answer 5

Habit or Routine Practice

Question 6

602

Answer 6

Need for Personal Knowledge

Question 7

608

Answer 7

A witness’s Character for Truth fullness or Untruthfulness

Question 8

611

Answer 8

Mode and Order of Presentation. (Basically leading questions and asked answered etc.)

Question 9

Test For Relevant Evidence 401

Answer 9

Evidence is relevant if it (a) tends to prove a material fact (b) is a consequence in determining the action.

Question 10

Excluding relevant evidence (403)

Answer 10

The court can exclude relevant evidence if its prohibitive value is substantial outweighed by prejudiced, confusions, delaying, or cumulative evidence

Question 11

Character Evidence 404(A 1)

Answer 11

A (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to
prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or
trait.

Question 12

Character Evidence 404(A2)

Answer 12

(2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply
in a criminal case:
(A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the
evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;
(B) a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the
evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may:
(i) offer evidence to rebut it; and
(ii) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait; and
(C) in a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of
peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.

Question 13

Proving character 405 (A)

Answer 13

By Reputation or Opinion. When evidence of a person’s character or character trait is admissible, it may be proved by testimony about the person’s reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross‐examination of the character witness, the court may allow an inquiry into relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct.

Question 14

Proving Character 405 (B)

Answer 14

By Specific Instances of Conduct. When a person’s character or character trait is an essential
element of a charge, claim, or defense, the character or trait may also be proved by relevant specific
instances of the person’s conduct.

Question 15

Habit or routine practice. 406

Answer 15

Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that
on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine
practice. The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there
was an eyewitness.

Question 16

Need for personal knowledge 602

Answer 16

A 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. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may
consist of the witness’s own testimony. This rule does not apply to a witness’s expert testimony under
Rule 703.

Question 17

A Witness’s Character For Truthfulness or Untruthfulness 608 (A)

Answer 17

Reputation or Opinion Evidence. A witness’s credibility may be attacked or supported by
testimony about the witness’s reputation for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or by
testimony in the form of an opinion about that character. But evidence of truthful character is
admissible only after the witness’s character for truthfulness has been attacked.

Question 18

608 (A)

Answer 18

Reputation or Opinion Evidence. A witness’s credibility may be attacked or supported by testimony about the witness’s reputation for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or by testimony in the form of an opinion about that character. But evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the witness’s character for truthfulness has been attacked.

Question 19

608 (B)

Answer 19

b) Specific Instances of Conduct. Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness’s conduct in order to attack or support the witness’s character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross‐examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of:
(1) the witness; or
(2) another witness whose character the witness being cross‐examined has testified about.
By testifying on another matter, a witness does not waive any privilege against self‐incrimination for testimony that relates only to the witness’s character for truthfulness.

Question 20

611

Answer 20

Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation
(a) Control by the Court; Purposes. The court should exercise reasonable control over the mode
and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to:
(1) make those procedures effective for determining the truth;
(2) avoid wasting time; and
(3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment
(RELEVANCE/ARGUMENTATIVE/LEADING)

Question 21

Rule 613. Witness’s Prior Statement

Answer 21

(a) Showing or Disclosing the Statement During Examination. When examining a witness about the witness’s prior statement, a party need not show it or disclose its contents to the witness. But the party must, on request, show it or disclose its contents to an adverse party’s attorney.
(b) Extrinsic Evidence of a Prior Inconsistent Statement. Extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior
inconsistent statement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the
statement and an adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so
requires. This subdivision (b) does not apply to an opposing party’s statement under Rule 801(d)(2).

Question 22

701 (Lay witness)

Answer 22

If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is:
(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception;
(b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue;
and
(c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.

Question 23

Rule 702. Testimony by Experts

Answer 23

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.

Question 24

703 Bases of an Expert’s Opinion Testimony

Answer 24

An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. If experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted. But if the facts or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.

Question 25

Rule 704. Opinion on Ultimate Issue

Answer 25

(a) In General — Not Automatically Objectionable. An opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue.
(b) Exception. In a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense. Those matters are for the trier of fact alone.

Question 26

Rule 705. Disclosing the Facts or Data Underlying An Expert’s Opinion

Answer 26

Unless the court orders otherwise, an expert may state and opinion‐and give the reason for it‐without first testifying to the underlying facts or data.But the expert may be required to disclose those facts or data on cross‐examination

Question 27

801

Answer 27

Hearsay:
Way too much, go learn it on your own.
Basically out of court statement being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Question 28

803

Answer 28

Exceptions to hearsay

Way too much, go learn it on your own.