Evidence Flashcards
Relevance
Small hurdle but check for each item of evidence. Evidence must be relevant for it to be admissible. Is it relevant if it tends to prove/disprove a material fact?
Relevance - Legal relevance
FRE 403 applies to balance probative value (PV) with risk of prejudice. A judge has broad discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its PV is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice (UP) (e.g., gory imagery, use of drugs), confusion of the issues, waste of time (e.g., speculative answer), or misleading the jury.
Relevance - Exclusion for public policy
Relevant evidence may be excluded for public policy reasons below. It may still be admissible for other purposes, e.g., prove ownership/control, impeachment, admission, rebut non-feasibility, bias.
Exclusion for public policy - Subsequent remedial measure
Evidence of repair or precautions inadmissible to show culpability. Can use to show ownership or control or destruction of evidence, or to rebut claim that precautions were impossible.
Exclusion for public policy - Settlement offers or negotiation (FRE 408)
Inadmissible to prove liability for, or invalidity of, a claim or its amount. Actual dispute as to validity or amount is required. Must exclude all potential statements attached to offer.
Exclusion for public policy - Offers to pay medical expenses (FRE 409)
Inadmissible. Accompanying admissions may be admissible.
Exclusion for public policy - Withdrawn guilty pleas
Inadmissible as too prejudicial, minimal PV (but can waive inadmissibility).
Exclusion for public policy - Liability insurance
“I have insurance” or lack of. Can’t use to show culpability. Can use to show ownership or control, to impeach, or as part of admission.
Preliminary Facts
Preliminary Facts - Judge’s role
Judge is not limited by evidence rules when determining preliminary facts (e.g., competency) except privileges.
Preliminary Facts - Authentication
Real or written evidence requires proof to support a jury finding that it is what the proponent claims it is. Authentication generally requires witness’s first-hand knowledge or familiarity. Preponderance not needed.
Preliminary Facts - Self-authenticating docs
Certified public and business records, trade inscriptions, official publications.
Preliminary Facts - Best evidence rule
To prove the content of a writing or other tangible collection of data relevant to proving some material fact, the original must be introduced if available. Can still be hearsay.
Best evidence rule - Applies
When content is to be proven or testimony depends on the document (e.g., K, will, deed, X-ray).
Best evidence rule - Duplicates
Are admissible to the same extent, unless 1) genuineness is at issue (any party contests authenticity), or 2) would be unfair in the circumstances to admit the duplicate in lieu.
Best evidence rule - Photocopies
Are acceptable but not handwritten copies unless original or duplicate unavailable.
Best evidence rule - Original not required
If lost or destroyed (unless by opponent bad faith), opponent fails to produce, collateral matter, subpoena ineffective, independent source (personal knowledge), inscribed chattel.
Competency of Witnesses
W must 1) have personal knowledge of the matter and 2) affirm/swear to testify truthfully.
Competency of Witnesses - Judge/jurors
Are not considered competent to testify at trial.
Competency of Witnesses - Modern
W may testify if understands duty to speak truthfully and has capacity to testify accurately.
Conditional Relevancy
If relevance depends on a particular fact finding by the jury, the court will admit the evidence after the judge first makes a threshold (and final) determination that a reasonably jury could find the necessary fact. Both parties may present evidence. Judge may conduct this hearing in the presence of the jury.
Judicial Notice
A court’s recognition of fact (or law) as true w/o presentation of evidence. Court may take notice of generally known or readily determined facts, on its own or if a party requests it and supplies necessary information.
Judicial Notice - Conclusive
Judicially noticed facts are conclusive in civil cases. Jury may not accept in criminal cases.
Rule of Completeness
If a party introduces part of a writing or recorded statement (even if inadmissible hearsay), the other party may require introduction of any other part in fairness (as long as not barred by, e.g., double hearsay).
Character Evidence
Susceptible to probative value v. unfair prejudice balance.
Character Evidence - General
Character describes one’s disposition with respect to general traits (good driver, trustworthiness, etc.). Character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove conduct in conformity therewith. (Just because A did [specific bad things showing similar character] before does not mean he did [charged act] in this case.)
Character Evidence - Purpose
Ways to prove: reputation, opinion (can test basis by asking whether W knows of a particular conduct), specific acts.
Character Evidence - EXCEPTION
Character Evidence - EXCEPTION - A opens the door
A opens the door to say A is of good pertinent character (W’s testimony puts A character in issue).
Character Evidence - EXCEPTION - Specific Acts
Only then may P rebut W’s bad character of same trait or V’s good character (specific acts required). Only then may D rebut W’s bad character of same trait or V’s good character (sp acts only or rep/op).
Character Evidence - EXCEPTION - Other purposes
D’s MIMIC (FRE 404(b)) or prior act of sexual assault (FRE 413–415) → sp.
Character Evidence - EXCEPTION - Other purposes - MIMIC
Motive, Intent, Mistake (absence of), Identity, Common plan.
Character Evidence - EXCEPTION - Defense or cause of action
If character evidence at issue → rep/op/sp: Defamation (B said A is a thief), Negligent entrustment (loan car to someone, should have known not a good idea to lend it), Child custody (fitness as parent).
Character Evidence - EXCEPTION - Self-defense
Survivor’s reasonable belief that V was initial aggressor.
Character Evidence - EXCEPTION - Entrapment
A had no predisposition to commit the crime → D can use predispositional element for P to rebut entrapment defense.
Character Evidence - EXCEPTION - Habit Evidence
Freely admissible to prove conduct of frequent situation. For an organization, a habit is a routine practice of the org. Look for 2+ occurrences, “always,” “every day,” “repeatedly.”
Hearsay - Definition
Out-of-court (OOC) statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is inadmissible upon proper objection unless an exemption/exception applies.
Hearsay - Out-of-Court Statement
Out-of-court (OOC) statement may be oral or written, includes assertive conduct, excludes depositions.
Hearsay - Multiple Hearsay
Multiple hearsay (double hearsay) (X said Y said Z): Admissible only if each level of hearsay is admissible.
Hearsay - Not Hearsay if
The statement is not hearsay where the OOC statement is introduced for other purposes, to show: legally operative facts of independent legal significance (e.g., K terms, defamatory words), effect on listener (notice, knowledge, motive), knowledge of speaker, or state of mind (insanity, belief).
Non-Hearsay Exemptions
“Prior” Statements