Evidence Flashcards
Character evidence
Although character evidence is not admissible to prove action in conformity with that character, it may be admissible for a relevant, non-character-related purpose, such as to attack a witness’s credibility.
Admitting witness’s prior conviction: the evidence would be admitted for a relevant, non-character-related purpose, so long as the judge instructs the jury to consider it for only the limited purpose of evaluating the witness’s credibility.
Instances where character evidence is introduced:
ule of Evidence 404(a)(2)(B) allows a criminal defendant to offer evidence of a victim’s character trait if the trait is pertinent, i.e., relevant to the case.
A criminal defendant may introduce evidence of the defendant’s own character trait if the trait is relevant to the charged offense.
A party is permitted to cross-examine an opposing party with character evidence that directly rebuts the opposing party’s specific claims.
A criminal defendant may present evidence of a victim’s character to support a claim that the victim was the first aggressor and that the defendant acted in self-defense.
Rape Shield Statute
Rule 412 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides very narrow circumstances in which character evidence about an alleged sexual offense victim is admissible. In short, the rule prohibits the use of character evidence to prove that the victim is sexually promiscuous or has engaged in other sexual behavior. The only narrow purposes for which evidence about the alleged victim’s sexual behavior may be admitted is to prove consent, or to prove that someone else, rather than the defendant, was the source of the physical evidence of sexual intercourse associated with the alleged victim.
Habit evidence
Habit evidence is evidence of a person’s strong, specific, and consistent behavior that may be admitted to prove that, on a particular occasion, the person acted in accordance with the habit. Includes even an organization’s routine habits See F.R.E. 406
Character
Under Rule 405 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, whenever character evidence is admissible, character can be proven by testimony in the form of an opinion about a person’s character or trait, or testimony about a person’s reputation in the general community. Generally, character evidence in the form of opinion or reputation is not admissible. However, there are several exceptions under Rule 404(a) that allow some character evidence to be admissible. In a criminal case, the defendant may offer evidence of his or her own pertinent trait. Here, because the man was charged with the crime of rape, he could offer character evidence of his own peacefulness to rebut the charge.
Specific instances of conduct
Specific instances of conduct can be offered as character evidence. As with opinion or reputation testimony, specific instances of conduct are not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that the person acted in a particular way based on his or her character. However, under Rule 405 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, specific instances of conduct may be admissible in a few situations: when cross-examining a character witness testifying to opinion or reputation, or when proving a character or trait that is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense. Here, the restaurant owner is suing the woman for defamation after she called him a liar. Showing that the restaurant owner is in fact a liar is an essential element of the woman’s defense. Consequently, a court will likely allow evidence that the restaurant owner lied to the city on his permit application.
Prior convictions
Prior crimes or misconduct are only admissible for noncharacter purposes. Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence specifies that a person’s previous crimes, wrongs, or other acts are not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show action in conformance with that character. Prior crimes or misconduct may include arrests, convictions, or even testimony from witnesses who observed unreported crimes. While inadmissible for the purpose of proving character, prior crimes or misconduct may be admissible for relevant, noncharacter purposes, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation or planning, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Typically, evidence of a prior crime or misconduct may be introduced only if it can be proven and if it was committed reasonably close in time to the relevant action. Here, the court is likely to admit the prior conviction because it shows the doctor’s motive for tampering with syringes containing the painkiller.
character evidence
character evidence in form of reputation or opinion is not admissible in form of evidence in civil cases
hospital expenses
Rule 409 of the Federal Rules of Evidence specifies that evidence of promising or offering to pay medical expenses resulting from an injury is inadmissible to prove liability for the injury. However, only the offer itself is inadmissible. Other statements that are related to the offer, but are not the offer itself, are not excluded. Therefore, the woman’s admission of fault is admissible to prove liability
Statements made pursuant to plea agreement
Under Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, only statements made in the context of plea negotiations or the entering of a guilty plea pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or its equivalent, are inadmissible against a defendant who was properly given Miranda warnings. Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence prohibits the use of withdrawn guilty pleas and nolo contendere—or no contest—pleas, as well as any statements made during proceedings or discussions regarding those pleas. The public policy rationale behind this rule is to encourage plea bargaining, in order to avoid litigation if possible.The policy underlying Rule 410 is to encourage plea bargains to avoid litigation, but not to immunize defendants from prosecution for their criminal conduct. Therefore, the rule is narrowly written and applied. See United States v. Levy. 578 F.2d 896 (2d Cir. 1978).
Subsequent remedial measures
Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product or its design, or a need for a warning or instruction. Admissible to prove facts suggesting a dispute over ownership here. evidence of subsequent remedial measures would likely be admissible for the purpose of showing ownership or control. Evidence of subs remedial measures also to prove a dispute over the feasibility of precautionary measures.
Settlement/ compromise offers
Under Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, compromise offers include the offer or acceptance of any valuable consideration in attempting to compromise the claim, as well as any conduct or statement made during negotiations. Compromise offers cannot be used to either prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim, or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction. The rationale behind Rule 408 is twofold. First, the conduct may be motivated solely by a desire for peace or other consideration. Second, as a matter of public policy, people should be encouraged to attempt to compromise and settle disputes, rather than proceed directly to litigation. While typically inadmissible, compromise offers and negotiations may be admissible for other purposes, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice, disproving undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
Insurance Policy
ften, a person or organization will be insured against potential liability. When an accident occurs, the victim may try to use the fact that the injuring party owns liability insurance in order to prove that the injuring party acted wrongfully. However, Rule 411 of the Federal Rules of Evidence prohibits the use of liability insurance ownership to prove that a person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. The public policy rationale behind this rule is to encourage the ownership of liability insurance. However, evidence of liability insurance may be admissible to prove witness bias or to prove agency, ownership, or control.
Non hearsay exemptions
. Under Rule 801(d)(1)(A), a declarant-witness’s prior statement is admissible if (1) the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about the prior statement, (2) the prior statement is inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, and (3) the prior statement was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition.
consistent prior statement:Under the hearsay exemption in Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1), a prior consistent statement will be admitted if (1) the prior statement is consistent with the declarant-witness’s testimony in the present trial, and (2)It admits only those that rehabilitate the declarant-witness after an impeaching attack on the witness. Based on the facts presented, there was no impeaching attack by the
prosecution on the defendant that justifies the admission of the earlier statement.Further, FRE 801(d)(1)(B) admits
only “pre-motive” statements when a witness is impeached for recent fabrication. The defendant’s statement, made
after his arrest, was post-motive and does not satisfy the requirements of FRE 801(d)(1)(B), even if there had been an
impeaching attack on the defendant’s credibility.
Rule 801(d)(1)(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence exempts from hearsay a prior statement that identified a person as someone whom the declarant previously perceived. Here, the witness-declarant had previously seen the defendant at the retail store and was being called to identify the defendant as the person whom he had observed shoplifting, which satisfies the rule and renders the statement an exemption from the rule against hearsay.
Rule 801(d)(2)(B) exempts statements made by others, offered against an opposing party, where the opposing party manifested an adoption of the statement or a belief that the statement was true.
nder Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), a coconspirator’s statement is a nonhearsay statement attributable to a party-opponent so long as it was made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Such statements may be used against the party-opponent, as if the party had made them herself, to prove the existence of a co-conspirator relationship and to prove that the party-opponent engaged in the conduct described in the statement. However, co-conspirator statements cannot be the sole evidence that a relationship existed between co-conspirators. Rather, additional evidence is required to show the relationship.
Hearsay exception
For example, Rule 803(6) makes statements in records of regularly conducted activity (i.e., certain business records) an exception to the rule against hearsay if: (1) the record was made at or near the time of the act or event by or from someone with knowledge, (2) the record was kept in the ordinary course of a regularly conducted activity of the business, (3) the record-keeping was a regular business practice, (4) a qualified witness testifies that the rule’s conditions have been met, and (5) neither the information’s source nor the method or circumstances of the record’s preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness. ” an exception applies to records kept by any “business, organization,
occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit.” Thus, the definition includes records made by churches, hospitals,
schools, etc. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). The record must have been made in the course of a regularly conducted business
activity, and it must have been customary to make that type of entry (i.e., that the entrant had a duty to make the
entry). The record itself must also have been maintained in conjunction with a business activity. Hospital records are
generally admissible to the extent that they are related to the medical diagnosis or treatment of the patient (which is
the primary business of the hospital).
Rule 803(5) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) removes from the hearsay ban certain previously recorded recollections, as long as they meet three conditions. First, the record must be on a matter about which the witness once knew but cannot recall. Second, the record must have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s mind. Third, the record must accurately reflect the witness’s knowledge. If the record satisfies those conditions, then, by the rule’s own terms, “the record may be read into evidence.
- exception for present sense impressions.
- excited utterances
Rule 803(3) makes admissible then-existing mental, emotional, or physical conditions, thereby permitting the admission of the car driver’s statement as a then-existing physical condition.. The exception does not admit statements about past facts that the declarant remembers or believes - Statements made in medical diagnosis:
he rule permits the admission of an out-of-court statement made for, or pertinent to, medical diagnosis or treatment, which statement describes the declarant’s medical history or past or present symptoms. The rule does not require that the statement be made to a medical professional or be made by the person seeking medical care. includes even statements made by family members or bystanders which typically does not include
statements assigning fault or identifying a perpetrator
5 exceptions requiring unavailability
Former testimony+ dying declaration+ statement against interest+ state of personal/family history+ forfeiture by wrongdoing
Statement against interest: Like in the case of prior inconsistent statement when W is unavailable to testify, it can be admitted as Statement against interest if against that person’s pecuniary,
proprietary, or penal interest when made. Declarant to have personal knowledge of facts and no motive to misrepresent when she made that statement
