Article IV Rules - Relevance and Its Limits

Question 1

Rule 408

Answer 1

Rule 408 bars evidence of offers to compromise or settlements to prove or disprove the validity OR amount of a disputed claim OR to impeach by prior inconsistent statement or contradiction
Conduct or statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim is precluded EXCEPT when offered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim by the public office in exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority.
EXCEPTIONS (non-exclusive): the court may admit evidence for ANOTHER PURPOSE such as proving witness’s BIAS OR PREJUDICE, negating a contention of UNDUE DELAY, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
Policy: to protect and encourage settlement

Question 2

Rule 407

Answer 2

Rule 407 precludes evidence of subsequent remedial measures that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in product/design, or a need for a warning/instruction. The court MAY admit evidence for ANOTHER PURPOSE: such as impeachment, OR - IF DISPUTED - proving ownership, control or feasibility of precautionary measures

Policy: encourage prompt repairs

Question 3

Rule 409 (like 9*11)

Answer 3

Under Rule 409 evidence of furnishing, promising to pay or offering to pay medical expenses resulting from injury is NOT admissible to prove liability for the injury.
Excludes evidence ONLY when offered to prove liability.
and does NOT exclude any other purpose including other statements made with offer to pay expenses.
Policy: encourage good samaritans and customer relations; encourage rapid settlement of claims; reduce extent of damages

Question 4

Rule 410

Answer 4

Under Rule 410, evidence of the following is NOT admissible against the defendant who made the plea or participated in the plea discussions:
(1) guilty please later withdrawn
(2) nolo contendere (no content) plea
(3) a statement made during a proceeding in either of those under FRCPro 11 or comparable state procedure
(4) a statement made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting attorney if the discussions did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in a later-withdrawn guilty plea

EXCEPTIONS: if fairness dictates statements must be read together OR if a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement, if the D made the statement under oath, on the record, and with counsel present

Was there a plea bargaining session?
whether the discussions constituted a plea bargaining session, under a two-pronged test:
(1) whether the defendant subjectively believed he was involved in a plea bargaining session, and
(2) whether it is objectively reasonable that it was a plea bargaining session.

Question 5

Rule 411

Answer 5

Rule 411 bars evidence of liability insurance to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.
EXCEPTIONS: Court may admit for another purpose such as proving witness’s bias or prejudice, or proving agency, ownership or control.
Policy: to encourage people to be insured.

Question 6

Rule 401

Answer 6

Under Rule 401, evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Tendency means legal relevance to prove anything. Of Consequence means evidence is related to the cause of action.

Question 7

Rule 402

Answer 7

Under 402, relevant evidence is admissible unless otherwise stated in one of 4 areas: constitution, a federal statute, these rules/FRE, or proscribed by SCOTUS. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.

Question 8

Rule 403

Answer 8

Under 403, the court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudicial effect, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

5 factors to consider:
(1) the extent to which the evidence will arouse the emotions or irrational prejudices among the jurors
(2) the extent to which the jury might overvalue the evidence
(3) the strength of the connection between the evidence and the elements of the case
(4) whether the advocate can prove the same facts through less prejudicial or confusing means; if alt. routes avail. then it is less likely to be admitted
(5) whether it would be possible to reduce prejudice or other harm from introducing the evidence