Evidence Flashcards
Evidence: Relevance
An item of E MUST be related to the case at hand in order to be admitted to the court.
Rule 401
Sets forth the test for relevance
Test for Relevance
E is relevant if it meets 2 criteria:
(1) Must be probative in that it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be w/o the E (NOT a stringent standard); AND
(2) The E MUST also be material in that the fact that makes it more or less probable is OF CONSEQUENCE in determining the action.
Irrelevant E
Irrelevant E is ALWAYS INADMISSIBLE.
Rule 402
Relevant E is admissible BUT ONLY if it hasn’t been made inadmissible by the Federal Rules of E or other sources of federal rules, SUCH AS the K or SCOTUS.
Rule 403
Sets forth a balancing test that should always be applied after determining that the E is relevant.
403 Balancing Test
The judge must determine whether the probative V of any relevant E is in danger of being substantially outweighed by one or more of a list of considerations.
403 Balancing Test: Considerations
- Unfair Prejudice;
- Tendency to CONFUSE OR DISTRACT the jury; AND/OR
- Tendency to MISLED the jury.
–> Designed to keep court proceedings efficient and prevent the trial from being bogged down.
Rule 105
Allows the court to restrict E to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.
· T4: the court can limit the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury
· The risk MUST be able to be reduced by jury instructions
Direct E
Testimony or real E that speaks DIRECTLY to a material issue in the case.
→ No inferences
Circumstantial E
E of a SUBSIDIARY OR COLLATERAL fact from which, alone or in conjunction with other facts, the existence of the material issue CAN BE INFERRED.
→ Indirect and relies on inference.
Limited Admissibility
E MAY be admissable for one purpose BUT NOT ANOTHER.
→ The court MUST ** UPON TIMELY REQUEST ** restrict the E to its proper scope and instruct the jury according.
Determining Relevance: GENERAL RULE
E MUST relate to TIME, EVENT, OR PERSON in PRESENT litigation.
· When considering the relevance of E relating to time, event, or person OTHER THAN THE ONE AT ISSUE, an important factor is its proximity in time to the current event.
Relevance: Collateral Issue: General Exceptions
Previous similar occurrences MAY BE RELEVANT if they are PROBATIVE of a MATERIAL ISSUE AND that probativeness OUTWEIGHS the RISK OF CONFUSION OR UNFAIR PREJUDICE.
→ Examples where E of a proximate issue would be admissible:
1. Causation
2. Prior False Claims OR Same Bodily Injury
3. Similar Accidents or Injuries Caused by Same Event or Condition
4. Previous Similar Acts Admissible to Prove Intent
5. Rebutting CLaim of Impossibility
6. Sales of Similar Property
7. Habit
8. Industrial or Business Routine
9. Industry Custom as E of Standard of Care
Determining Admissibility of E: STEP 1
Is the E RELEVANT?
Determining Admissibility of E: STEP 2
Is there a proper FOUNDATION?
Determining Admissibility of E: STEP 3
Is the E in the proper form?
Determining the Admissibility of E: STEP 4
Is the E beyond the application of, OR, within an EXCEPTION to, one of the EXCLUSIONARY RULES?
Exclusionary Rules: ALL
- Discretionary exclusion for prejudice (Rule 403)
- Policy-based exclusions
- Privilege
- Hearsay
- Parol E (Contracts)
Relevance: E Related to Collateral Issue: CAUSATION
Complicated issues of causation MAY BE ESTABLISHED by E concerning other times, events, or persons.
Relevance: E Related to Collateral Issue: PRIOR FALSE CLAIMS OR SAME BODILY INJURY
E that a person has previously filed SIMILART TORT CLAIMS OR has been INVOLVED in prior accidents is GENERALL INADMISSIBILE ** to show the invalidity of the present claim.**
→ BUT E that the party has made previous SIMILAR FALSE CLAIMS OR CLAIMS INVOLVING the SAME bodily injury is USUALLY RELEVANT to prove that:
(1) The present claim is LIKELY TO BE FALSE; OR
(2) The P’s condition is attributable ** in whole or in part ** to the PRIOR INJURY.
Relevance: E Related to Collateral Issue: SIMILAR ACCIDENTS OR INJURIES CAUSED BY SAME EVENT
ADMISSIBLE to prove:
(1) the EXISTENCE of a DANGEROUS CONDITION;
(2) that the D had KNOWLEDGE of the dangerous condition; AND
(3) that the dangerous condition was the CAUSE of the PRESENT INJURY.
Relevance: E Related to Collateral Issue: ABSENCE OF SIMILAR ACCIDENTS
Courts are reluctant to admit E.
→ BUT E of the absence of complaints IS ADMISSIBLE to show the D’s LACK OF KNOWLEDGE of the danger.
Relevance: E Related to Collateral Issue: PREVIOUS SIMILAR ACTS ADMISSIBLE TO PROVE INTENT
May be admissible to PROVE the party’s PRESENT MOTIVE OR INTENT when ** such elements are relevant.**
Relevance: E Related to Collateral Issue: REBUTTING CLAIM OF IMPOSSIBILITY
The requirement that prior occurrences be similar to the litigated act MAY BE RELAXED when used to rebut a claim of impossibility.
Relevance: E Related to Collateral Issue: SALES OF SIMILAR PROPERTY
E of sales of similar PERSONAL OR REAL property that are NOT TOO REMOTE IN TIME is ADMISSIBLE to PROVE V.
· Prices QUOTED in mere offers are INADMISSIBLE.
→ BUT E of UNACCEPTED offers by a party to the action to BUY OR SELL = Admissible.
Relevance: E Related to Collateral Issue: HABIT: GENERAL
A person’s REGULAR RESPONSE to a SPECIFIC set of circumstances.
→ In contrast to one’s DISPOSITION in respect to general traits.
Relevance: E Related to Collateral Issue: Habit: RULE 406
E of a person’s habit MAY BE ADMISSIBLE to prove that on a particular occasion, the person acted in accordance w/ the ref. habit.
· PRO TIP: Look for INSTINCTIVELY and AUTOMATICALLY.
Relevance: E Related to Collateral Issue: INDUSTRIAL/BUSINESS ROUTINE
E that a particular business had an established business routine is RELEVANT as tending to show that a particular event OCCURRED.
Relevance: E Related to Collateral Issue: Industry Custom As E of Standard of Care (SOC)
Industry custom MAY BE OFFERED to show adherence to/deviance from an industry-wide SOC.
→ BUT industry custom is NOT CONCLUSIVE on this point b/c the entire industry MAY be acting negligently.
Discretionary Exclusion of Relevant E
A trial judge HAS BROAD DISCRETION to exclude relevant E IF its PROBATIVE VALUE is SUBSTANTIALLY outweighed by the danger of:
· Unfair prejudice;
· Confusion of issues;
· Undue delay;
· Waste of time; OR
· Needless presentation of cumulative E.
→ BUT NOT unfair surprise.
Exclusion of Relevant E: Public Policy Reasons: GENERAL
Certain E of questional relevance is EXCLUDED b/c public policy favors the bahavior involved.
Exclusion of Relevant E: Public Policy Reasons: ALL
E excluded for public policy reasons includes the following:
· Liability insurance;
· Subsequent remedial measures;
· Settlement offers;
· Offers to pay medical expenses; OR
· Withdrawn guilty pleas.
Exclusion of Relevant E: Public Policy Reasons: LIABILITY INSURANCE
· To show negligence OR ability to pay? NOT ADMISSIBLE.
· MAY be admissible:
(1) to prove ownership OR control;
(2) to impeach; OR
(3) as part of an admission of liability.
Exclusion of Relevant E: Public Policy Reasons: SUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES
E of repairs or other precautionary measures made FOLLOWING an injury is NOT ADMISSIBLE to prove:
· Negligence;
· Culpable conduct;
· Defect in a product OR its design; OR
· Need for warning OR instruction.
→ Admissible to:
· Prove ownership/control;
· Rebut a claim that the precaution was not feesible; OR
· Prove that the OP has destroyed E.
Exclusion of Relevant E: Public Policy Reasons: SETTLEMENT OFFERS
NOT ADMISSIBLE to prove or disprove the validity or amt. of a disputed claim, OR to impeach a W by prior inconsistent statement or contradiction.
→ CONDUCT AND STATEMENTS made in the course of negotitation = INADMISSIBLE
· For this to apply: MUST be some indication that a party is going to MAKE A CLAIM.
→ NOT a requirement to have filed a suit.
→ BUT the claim MUST be IN DISPUTE as to LIABILITY/AMT.
Exclusion of Relevant E: Public Policy Reasons: Settlement Offers: EXCEPTION
Conduct/statements made DURING compromise negotitations re: civil dispute w/ a GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (regulatory, investigative/enforcement) are NOT EXCLUDED when offered in a CRIMINAL CASE.
