Evidence Flashcards
What is Relevance for Evidence purposes?
Evidence is relevant if it has ANY TENDENCY to make the existence of any FACT OF CONSEQUENCE to the determination of an action (materiality) MORE OR LESS PROBABLE than it would be without the evidence (probative).
Besides specific exclusionary rules, what discretion do courts have to exclude relevant evidence?
A trial judge has broad discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its PROBATIVE VALUE is SUBSTANTIALLY outweighed by the danger of one or more of the following considerations:
- Danger of unfair prejudice (there is a danger that the jury will decide the case on an emotional basis)
- Confusion of the issues (the evidence creates a side issue)
- Misleading the jury (there is a danger that the jury will give undue weight to the evidence) (EX: expert testimony)
- Undue delay
- Waste of time
- Needless presentation of cumulative (repetitive) evidence
NOTE: Balancing probative value VS. the above pragmatic considerations above. If the latter substantially outweigh the former, then it’s inadmissible (but it’s in favor of admissibility).
NOTE: unfair surprise is NOT a valid ground upon which to exclude relevant evidence.
When may unfair surprise be used as a grounds for excluding evidence?
Unfair surprise is NOT a valid ground upon which to exclude relevant evidence, idiot.
What is the rule of evidence regarding Similar Occurrences that might be used in the present trial?
As a general rule, if evidence involves some time, event, or person other than that involved in the present case, it is inadmissible. The rationale is that the evidence often does not survive the Rule 403 balancing test; in other words, the relevance is weak to begin with and the probative value is substantially outweighed by pragmatic considerations (for example, the dangers of confusing the issues, misleading the jury, or wasting time).
Despite the general rule, some recurring situations have produced concrete rules that may allow prior similar occurrences to be admitted. The following are examples of relevant similar occurrences:
- Plaintiff’s Accident History
- Similar Accidents or Injuries Caused by Same Event or Condition
- Previous Similar Acts Admissible to Prove Intent
- Sales of Similar Property
- Rebutting a Claim of Impossibility
- Causation
- Habit and/or Business Routine Evidence
- Industry Custom as Evidence of Standard of Care
What is the rule for admissibility of a Plaintiff’s Accident History?
Evidence that a person has previously filed similar tort claims or has been involved in prior accidents is generally inadmissible to show the invalidity of the present claim; all it demonstrates is that the person is litigious or accident-prone.
However, such evidence may be admissible if it tends to show something other than carelessness of the plaintiff. EX:
- Evidence that a plaintiff has made previous similar false claims is usually relevant to prove that the present claim is likely to be false.
- Evidence of prior accidents may be admissible where the cause of the plaintiff’s damages is at issue. If the plaintiff previously injured the same part of their body, the evidence may be admitted to show that the plaintiff’s condition is attributable (in whole or in part) to the prior injury rather than the current accident.
- Habit and/or Business Routine Evidence
What is the rule for admissibility of Similar Accidents or Injuries Caused by Same Event or Condition?
Generally, other accidents involving the defendant are inadmissible because they merely show the defendant’s general character for carelessness.
However, evidence of prior accidents or injuries caused by the same event or condition and occurring under substantially similar circumstances is admissible to prove:
(1) the EXISTENCE of a DANGEROUS CONDITION,
(2) that the dangerous condition was the CAUSE of the present injury, and/or
(3) that the defendant had NOTICE of the dangerous condition (if the other accident occurred before the plaintiff’s accident).
What is the rule for admissibility for the Absence of Similar Accidents?
Many courts are reluctant to admit evidence of the absence of similar accidents to show absence of negligence or lack of a defect. However, evidence of the absence of complaints is admissible to show the defendant’s lack of knowledge of the danger.
What is the rule for admissibility of Previous Similar Acts to Prove Intent?
Similar conduct previously committed by a party may be admissible to prove the party’s present motive or intent in the current case.
What is the rule for admissibility for Sales of Similar Property?
Evidence of sales of similar personal or real property around the same time period is admissible TO PROVE THE PROPERTY’S VALUE. However, prices quoted in mere offers to purchase generally aren’t admissible.
What is the rule for admissibility of evidence of prior occurrences for Rebutting a 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 (for example, the defendant’s claim that the car will not go above 50 miles per hour can be rebutted by showing occasions when the car went more than 50 miles per hour).
What is the rule for admissibility for proving complex Causation scenarios?
Complicated issues of causation may be established by evidence concerning other times, events, or persons (EX: damage to nearby homes caused by D’s blasting is relevant to prove D’s blasting damaged P’s home).
What is the rule for admissibility of Habit and/or Business Routine Evidence?
Evidence of a person’s habit (or evidence of the routine practice of an organization) is admissible as circumstantial evidence that the person (or organization) acted in accordance with the habit on the occasion at issue in the case. Habit describes a person’s regular response to a specific set of circumstances. Thus, there are 2 defining characteristics of habit: (1) frequency of conduct and (2) particularity of circumstances.
- Watch for key words such as “always,” “invariably,” “instinctively,” and “automatically” in a question’s fact pattern. These words may indicate habit.
What is the rule for admissibility for Industry Custom as Evidence of Standard of Care?
Evidence as to how others in the same trade or industry have acted in the recent past may be offered as evidence of the appropriate standard of care (to show how the party in the current case should have acted). However, industry custom isn’t conclusive on this point; for example, an entire industry may be acting negligently.
What is the rule for admissibility of Liability Insurance?
Evidence of a party’s insurance against liability (or lack thereof) is not admissible to show whether the party acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully (fault or absence of fault). However, it may be admissible for other relevant purposes, such as:
- To prove ownership or control, if disputed;
- To impeach a witness (usually to show their bias); or
- As part of an admission of liability, where the reference to insurance coverage cannot be severed without lessening its probative value as an admission of liability (EX: “Don’t worry, my insurance will pay it off”).
What is the rule for admissibility of Subsequent Remedial Measures?
Evidence of repairs or other precautionary measures made following an injury is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product or its design, or a need for a warning or instruction. However, it may be admissible for some other relevant purpose, such as:
- To prove ownership or control, if disputed;
- To rebut a claim that a precaution was not feasible; or
- To prove that the opposing party has destroyed evidence.
What is the rule for admissibility of Civil Settlements and Settlement Negotiations?
Evidence of a compromise (settlement) or an offer to compromise a civil claim is not admissible in any case to: (1) prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim, or (2) impeach a witness by prior inconsistent statement or contradiction. Conduct or statements made in the course of negotiating a compromise—including direct admissions of liability—are also inadmissible for these purposes.
- NOTE: Evidence of a settlement is admissible to impeach a witness on the ground of bias.
- The public policy exclusion for settlements and negotiations only kicks in if there was a claim or some indication that a party was going to make a claim (although the party need not have actually filed suit). Furthermore, the claim must have been in dispute as to either (1) liability (validity of the claim) OR (2) amount.
What exceptions apply to the inadmissibility rule of Civil Settlements and Settlement Negotiations?
Civil Dispute with Government Authority: Under the Federal Rules, conduct or statements made during compromise negotiations regarding a civil dispute with a governmental regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority are not excluded when offered in a criminal case (EX: a defendant’s admissions of fact during settlement negotiations with a securities enforcement agency would be admissible against the defendant in a related criminal trial).
What is the rule for admissibility of Plea Discussions?
The following are generally inadmissible in any criminal or civil case against the defendant who made the plea or participated in the discussions: (1) Offers to plead guilty; (2) Withdrawn guilty pleas; (3) Actual pleas of nolo contendere (“no contest”); or (4) Statements of fact made during any of the above plea discussions.
- NOTE An actual guilty plea (not withdrawn) is generally admissible
in related litigation as a statement of an opposing party.
What is the rule for admissibility of Payments of and Offers to Pay Medical Expenses?
Evidence that a party has paid or offered to pay an injured person’s medical, hospital, or similar expenses is inadmissible to prove liability for the injury.
However, unlike the situation with settlement negotiations, admissions of fact accompanying such payments and offers are admissible.
- NOTE: “I’ll pay your medical expenses if you drop the case” is a settlement offer!
What is Character Evidence?
Character evidence refers to a person’s general propensity or disposition (EX: for honesty, fairness, peacefulness, violence).
When can Character Evidence be offered at trial to prove a fact at issue?
Character evidence might be offered as substantive evidence (to prove a fact at issue in the case) for the following purposes: (1) To prove a person’s character in the rare situation where their character is directly in issue in the case (meaning, an essential element of a claim or defense); or (2) To serve as circumstantial evidence of how a person probably acted during the events of the case. This is also known as “conduct in conformity with character” or “propensity” evidence. This purpose is PERMITTED ONLY IN A FEW SITUATIONS.
What are the methods of proving character?
Depending on the purpose of the offer and the nature of the case, some or all of the following methods of proving character may be allowed:
- Evidence of the person’s specific acts;
- Opinion testimony of a witness who knows the person; and
- Testimony as to the person’s general reputation in the community.
What are the rules regarding a defendant’s character in a criminal case?
The prosecution cannot initiate evidence of the defendant’s bad character (reputation or opinion) to show conduct in conformity (propensity).
However, because the defendant’s life or liberty is at stake, the defendant is permitted to introduce evidence of their own RELEVANT GOOD CHARACTER TRAIT(S) (in the form of reputation or opinion testimony) to show their innocence. If the defendant introduces evidence of their good character, then the prosecution can rebut with evidence (reputation or opinion) of the defendant’s bad character.
- A character witness for the defendant may testify as to the defendant’s good reputation for a pertinent trait and may give their personal opinion concerning that trait of the defendant.
What may evidence of prior misconduct (bad acts) or crimes be used for?
Not propensity to do misconduct, but yes for motive, intent, mistake (or absence of mistake), identity, or a common plan or scheme (MIMIC).