Chapter 3 Short & Happy Guide (Relevance) Flashcards

1
Q

Federal Rules of Evidence Article 4 governs:

A

Relevance

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

Rule 401 is titled ______ ______ ________ _______.

A

Test for relevant evidence

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

Rule 402 provides in part, that _________ ________ is not ________.

A

Irrelevant evidence is not admissible

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

If a piece of evidence is not relevant, it is not __________.

A

Admissible

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

Rule _______ defines relevant evidence as that which has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

A

401

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

As held by the Supreme Court, relevance under Rule _______ is determined in the context of the facts and arguments in a particular case, and thus are generally not amenable to broad per se rules (that would exclude the evidence).

A

401

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

How does one determine whether a piece of evidence meets the requirements of rule 401?

A

Generally, when a piece of evidence relates to an issue regarding a person, place, thing, time or event related to the lawsuit, then it is likely relevant.

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

Generally, when a piece of evidence relates to an issue regarding a person, place, thing, time or event related to the lawsuit, then it is likely relevant. This is often called _________ ________.

A

Logical relevance

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

Rule ______ provides that relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise: the United States Constitution; a federal statute; these rules; or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court.”

A

402

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

Suppose that Black Widow was on trial for the murder of husband number 4. Evidence that the woman used the death of husband number 2 may not have _________ _______ in the strictest sense. However, such evidence might lead to an inference that she caused the death of husband number 4.

A

Logical relevance

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

Certain people will occasionally file false claims, or file multiple claims, alleging the same or similar injuries. The defending party would like evidence if these prior incidents admitted. It is quite likely they will not be admitted. The reason for their exclusion is not that they are __________. They will be excluded based on another rule. Evidence of prior claims might result in a decision being made, on an _____ _______ such as an emotional one.

A

Irrelevant

Improper basis

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

Suppose John Smith is suing Walmart for a slip and fall accident. Evidence of an incident where Nancy slipped and fell in that same Walmart does not directly relate to John Smiths lawsuit. However, Nancy’s incident might be relevant to prove that:
A. ?
B.
C.

A

A. A defect or dangerous condition existed (slippery aisles)

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

Suppose John Smith is suing Walmart for a slip and fall accident. Evidence of an incident where Nancy slipped and fell in that same Walmart does not directly relate to John Smiths lawsuit. However, Nancy’s incident might be relevant to prove that:
A.
B. ?
C.

A

B. The defendant (Walmart) had knowledge of the defect or dangerous condition; and

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

Suppose John Smith is suing Walmart for a slip and fall accident. Evidence of an incident where Nancy slipped and fell in that same Walmart does not directly relate to John Smiths lawsuit. However, Nancy’s incident might be relevant to prove that:
A.
B.
C. ?

A

C. The defect or dangerous condition was the cause of the injury in the present lawsuit

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

A defendant might try to prove the absence of similar accidents or injuries. Courts may admit evidence of a lack of previous injuries to controversy allegations of prior knowledge of the defect or _______ ________.

A

Dangerous condition

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

Suppose John Smith is suing Walmart for a slip and fall accident. Walmart wants to use the evidence of John’s previous slip and fall to show his ______ or _______ in this slip and fall case. It would certainly be relevant. Relevance does not mean the evidence will be admitted. In this case, evidence of the previous slip and fall (although relevant) might be excluded under a different rule such as rule _____.

A

motive or intent

403

17
Q

Given the appropriate circumstances, _____ _____ may be relevant to rebut a claim of impossibility.

A

prior acts

18
Q

Given the appropriate circumstances, prior acts may be relevant to rebut a claim of __________.

A

impossibility

19
Q

Given the appropriate circumstances, prior acts may be relevant to rebut a claim of impossibility. The relevance is that the evidence is used to ______ a witness or claim.

A

impeach

20
Q

Suppose in a Worker’s Compensation Claim, a worker from Target alleges that his injuries prevent him from lifting more than 50 pounds. But you have evidence that just last weekend (after the alleged injury), the worker was helping his sister move her apartment full of furniture. This evidence would be _______ to show that he can lift more than 50 pounds. The evidence would be used to ______ the workers claim that he could not life more than 50 pounds.

A

relevant

rebut

21
Q

Suppose you are trying to prove the value of a pocket watch. Traditionally, _______ were employed. But now we have e-bay. You can use evidence of ______ of ______ ________ as evidence of value.

A

experts

sale of similar property

22
Q

Suppose you are trying to prove that on a particular occasion, Sally Smith locked the door to her home before she left. There may be no direct evidence that she locked the door on a particular occasion. However, you might be able to prove that Sally has a ________ of locking her door when she leaves her home.

A

habit

23
Q

A fact-finder might make the _______ that since Sally has such a _____, that on the occasion in question, she did, in fact, lock her door.

A

inference

habit

24
Q

Rule 406

A

Habit; Routine Practice

25
Q

Habit; Routine Practice. What rule?

A

406

26
Q

Although the facts may not have a direct logical relationship to the issue or issues, these facts may have an ________ logical relationship.

A

indirect

27
Q
A