Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Cal Bar Essay Outlines > Evidence > Flashcards

Evidence Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards
1
Q

Relevance

Relevance

A

To be admissible, evidence must be both logically and legally relevant. Relevant evidence is admissible unless another rule provides otherwise.

Logical Relevance
Evidence is logically relevant if it has any tendency to prove or disprove a material fact. (In CA, the material fact must be in dispute).

Legal Relevance
Evidence is legally relevant if it’s not excluded under FRE 403/CEC 352.

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

Relevance

FRE 403/CEC 352

A

Under FRE 403/CEC 352, the court may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of:
1. unfair prejudice,
2. confusing the issues,
3. misleading the jury,
4. undue delay,
5. wasting time, or
6. being needlessly cumulative.

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

Relevance

CA Proposition 8

A

Under Proposition 8 of the California Constitution, all relevant evidence is admissible in a criminal trial, with several special exemptions*.

*(1) exclusionary rules based on the U.S. Const (Miranda, Confrontation, etc.), (2) the Secondary Evidence Rule, (3) hearsay, (4) privilege, (5) evidence barred under rape-shield laws, and (6) D’s character.

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

Policy Exclusion

Subsequent Remedial Measures

A

Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to show culpability or negligence [for public policy reasons].

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

Policy Exclusion

Evidence of Liability Insurance

A

Evidence of liability insurance is not admissible to prove culpability [for public policy reasons].

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

Policy Exclusion

Offers to Pay Medical Bills

A

Evidence of paying or offering to pay medical expenses is not admissible to prove liability for injury [for public policy reasons].

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

Policy Exclusion

Offers to Settle

A

Offers to compromise and statements made during settlement negotiations are not admissible to prove the claim’s validity or amount [for public policy reasons].

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

Physical & Documentary Evidence

Authentication of Evidence (General Rule)

A

All evidence must be authenticated before being admitted, i.e., a party must prove that the item is what the party purports it to be.

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

Physical & Documentary Evidence

Authentication of Evidence (Physical Evidence)

A

Physical evidence may be authenticated through (a) W testimony, or (b) a substantially unbroken chain of custody.

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

Physical & Documentary Evidence

Authentication of Evidence (Voice Recordings)

A

Voice recordings may be authenticated by anyone who has (1) heard the person speak, and (2) identified the recorded person as the speaker.

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

Physical & Documentary Evidence

Best Evidence Rule

A
  • To prove the contents of the writing, a party must provide the original dodument (or reliable duplicate/photocopy).
  • In CA, this rule is called the Secondary Evidence Rule.
  • Under the FRE, handwritten duplicates are not admissible. In CA, handwritten duplicates are admissible.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Character Evidence

Character Evidence (General Rule)

A
  • Generally, character evidence is not admissible to show propensity (that a person acted in conformity with a character trait on a particular occasion).
  • However, character evidence is admissible:
    (a) for non-propensity purpose, or
    (b) when the character is “at issue” and an essetial element of the case.

Character rules can overlap with impeachment rules when a witness is on the stand. If the purpose for the character evidence is to prove that a W is untruthful -> impeachment rules, if it is for any other purpose -> character evidence rule.

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

Character Evidence

Character Evidence (Criminal Case)

A
  • Defendant’s Character: In criminal cases, the prosecution is not allowed to present character evidence of the D to prove propensity, unless the D first “opens the door” and presents evidence of that character trait.
  • Victim’s Character (Non Sex-Offense): Except in sex-offense cases, a D may offer evidence of the victim’s character to prove the D’s innocence.
  • Victim’s Character (Sex Offense): For sex-offense cases, evidence to prove a victim’s sexual behaivior is generally not admissible.
  • Victim’s Character (Homicide): Under the FRE, in a homicide case, a D may offer evidence of the victim’s character for violence to establish self-defense.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Character Evidence

Methods of Proving Character

A

When character evidence is admissible, it may be proven by:
(A) opinion or reputation in the community, in all instances; or
(B) specific acts, only (a) on cross-examination, or (b) if the character is “at issue.”

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

Prior Bad Acts

Prior Bad Acts

A
  • Evidence of prior bad acts is not admissible to show propensity (that a person acted in conformity with a character trait on a particular occasion).
  • However, it may be admissible for other purposes suc as proving motive, identity, mistake, intent, common scheme, or knowledge.

MIMICK

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

Impeachment

Prior Inconsistent Statements

A
  • Prior inconsistent statements are admissible to impeach a W’s trial testimony.
  • Extrinsic evidence is admissible only if either:
    (a) (i) the W is first given an opportunity to explain the statement, and (ii) the adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the W about it; or
    (b) justice so requires (e.g. W becomes unavailable).
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Impeachment

Prior Convictions (FRE)

A
  • Under the FRE, prior felony or misdemeanor convictions involving dishonesty are always admissible to impeach a W.
  • All other misdemeanors are NOT admissible to impeach.
  • Felonies that DO NOT involve dishonesty are admissible to impeach, subject to the court’s balancing.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Impeachment

Prior Convictions (CA)

A
  • In CA, prior felony convictions involving moral turpitude are admissible to impeach. Felonies that DO NOT not involve moral turpitude are NOT admissible.
  • Moral turpitude includes crimes involving lying, violence, sex crime, and extreme reckless.
  • In a criminal case, misdemeanor convictions are admissible for crimes involving moral turpitude.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Impeachment

Specific Acts (“Bad Acts”)

A
  • Under the FRE, W’s specific acts (prior bad acts) are admissible to impeach the W’s character for truthfulness by questioning him on cross-examination. No extrinsic evidence is allowed.
  • In CA, prior bad acts are generally NOT admissible. However, they are admissible if the act(s) involve moral turpitude.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Witness Examination

Lay Witness

A
  • A lay W may only testify to matters of which he has personal knowledge.
  • A lay W may only offer an opinion if it is:
    1. rationally based on the W’s perception, and
    2. helpful to the factfinder.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Witness Examination

Expert Witness

A

Expert testimoby is permitted when:
1. the W is qualified as an expert,
2. the testimony is helpful to the factfinder,
3. the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data,
4. the testimony is based on reliable principles and methods, and
5. the expert has reasonably applied the principles and methods to the facts to the case.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Witness Examination/Presentation of Evidence

Refreshing Recollection

A

Refreshing a W’s recollection using a document is permitted when:
1. the W once had personal knowledge of the matter,
2. but is unable to recall the matter while testifying.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Judicial Notice

Judicial Notice

A
  • A court may take judicial notice of indisputable facts that are either:
    (a) commonly known in the community, or
    (b) readily capable of verification and cannot reasonably be questioned.
  • Under the FRE, judicial notice is conclusive in civil cases, but not conclusive in criminal cases (the jury may or may not accept it as conclusive).
  • In CA, judicial notice is conclusive in both civil and criminal cases.
24
Q

Objections to the form of the question

Assumes Facts Not in Evidence

A

A question that assumes facts not in evidence is not permitted.

25
Q

Objections to the form of the question

Leading Question

A
  • A leading question is one that suggests an answer to the W.
  • Leading questions are permitted on cross-examination, but not on direct examination.
26
Q

Objections to the form of the question (answer)

Non-Responsive Answer

A

A non-responsive answer provides more information than the question asked for and not permitted.

27
Q

Objections to the form of the question (answer)

Speculation

A

A W may only testify to personal knowledge and cannot speculate.

28
Q

Hearsay

Hearsay Definition

A
  • Hearsay is:
    1. an out-of-court statement,
    2. that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
  • Hearsay is ONLY admissible if it falls under an exception.
29
Q

Hearsay

Multiple Hearsay

A

When evidence contains hearsay within hearsay, each level of hearsay must fall within an exception to be admissible.

30
Q

Hearsay

Statements Offered for Other Purpose

A

If an out-of-court statement is offered to prove something other than the truth of the statement, it is non-hearsay and admissible.
* Effect on listener/reader (the listener/reader was put on notice of some info
* Declarant’s state of mind (knowledge/mental state where info provides motive or explanation for subsequent act
* Words of independent legal significance (e.g. words establishing a K, defamation)
* Reputation
* Impeachment

31
Q

Hearsay Exclusions (Admissions)

America Values Peter-Parker

A

Adoptive Admission
Vicarious Admission
Party Admission (Statements by a Party Opponent)

32
Q

Hearsay Exclusions (Admissions)

Adoptive Admission

A
  • A person’s silence may constitute an adopted admission if a reasonable person would have denied the statement.
  • An adoptive admission is not hearsay and admissible.
33
Q

Hearsay Exclusions (Admissions)

Vicarious Admission

A

Statements by:
(a) an agent or employee made during/within the scope of that relationship; or
(b) co-conspirators during the conspiracy
are not hearsay and admissible.

34
Q

Hearsay Exclusions (Admissions)

Party Admission (Statements by a Party Opponent)

A

A statement (admission) by a party opponent is not heasay and admissible.

e.g. All statements made in pleadings; an anonymous letter admitting tax liability sent to the IRS in D’s handwriting; D’s guilty plea to DUI.

35
Q

Hearsay Exceptions - Declarant Unavailable

Fast Service Delivered

A

Former Testimony
Statement Against Interest
Dying Declaration

36
Q

Declarant Unavailable

Declarant Unavailable Requirement

A

A declarant is deemed unavailable as W if he:
1. is exempted due to privilege;
2. refuses to testify despite a court order (CA: (a) refuses to testify out of fear, or (b) persistently refuses to testify);
3. does not remember the subject matter (CA: total memory loss is required);
4. dead or sick; or
5. his attendance cannot be procured by reasonable means.

37
Q

Declarant Unavailable

Former Testimony

A
  • Former sworn testimony is an exception to the hearsay rule and admissible, if:
    1. the declarant is unavailable;
    2. the testimony is offered against a party who was present in the previous trial; and
    3. the party had a similar motive and opportunity to cross examine the W in the previous trial.
38
Q

Declarant Unavailable

Statement Against Interest

A
  • A statement against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule and admissible if:
    1. the declarant is unavailable,
    2. it’s a statement against the declarant’s penal, proprietary, or pecuniary interest when made, and
    3. the declarant knew it was against his interest when the statement was made.
  • In CA, statements against one’s social interests are also admissible.
39
Q

Declarant Unavailable

Dying Declaration

A
  • A dying declaration is an exception to the hearsay rule and admissible, if:
    1. the declarant is unavailable,
    2. he believed his imminent death, and
    3. the statement is about the circumstances or cause of his impending death.
  • In CA, the declarant must actually be dead.
40
Q

Hearsay Exceptions - Spontaneous, Excited, or Contemporaneous

Mulan and Pocahontas Save Eeyore

A

Medical Diagnosis/Treatment Statements
Present Sense Impression
State of Mind
Excited Utterance

41
Q

Spontaneous, Excited, or Contemporaneous

Medical Diagnosis/Treatment Statement

A

A statement describes medical history or symptoms (part or present) is an exception to the hearsay rule and admissible if it is made for medical diagnosis or treatment.

42
Q

Spontaneous, Excited, or Contemporaneous

Present Sense Impression (PSI)

A
  • PSI is an exception to the hearsay rule and admissible. A PSI is a statement describing and event and made:
    (a) while the declarant was perceving the event, or
    (b) immediately thereafter.
  • In CA, this exception is called the Contemporaneous Statement, and it only applies when the statement:
    1. is offered to explain the declarant’s own conduct, and
    2. was made while the declarant was engaged in such conduct.
43
Q

Spontaneous, Excited, or Contemporaneous

State of Mind

A

Statements of the declarant’s:
(a) then-existing state of mind (i.e. intent, motive, plan), or
(b) emotional, sensory, or physical condition
are an exception to the hearsay rule and admissible.

e.g. “I am leaving later today to visit relatives in a distant state.”

44
Q

Spontaneous, Excited, or Contemporaneous

Excited Utterance

A
  • An excited utterance is an exception to the hearsay rule and admissible. An excited utterance is a statement made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement of a startling event.
  • In CA, this exception is called the Spontaneous Statement.
45
Q

Hearsay Exceptions - Document

Pixer keeps Raising Revenue with Buzz Lightyear Popularity

A

Past Recollection Recorded
Business Records
Public Records

46
Q

Document

Past Recollection Recorded

A
  • A past recollection recorded is an exception to the hearsay rule and admissible if:
    1. the writing was made or adopted by the W,
    2. the writing was made while the events were still fresh in the mind of the W, and
    3. the W can no longer remember the event.
  • If admitted, the record may be read into evidence.
47
Q

Document

Business Records

A
  • A business record is an exception to the hearsay rule and admissible if:
    1. it is made by a person with knowledge of the matter,
    2. it is the regular practice of the business to make such a record, and
    3. it is timely made.
  • In CA, the party introducing the business record has the burden of showing that the record was made under circumstances indicating trustworthiness.
48
Q

Document

Public Records

A

The following records are admissible under the hearsay exception:
1. agency’s record of its own activities,
2. observations made by someone in accordance with his duties by law (except police reports in criminal cases), and
3. factual findings from a legally authorized investigation (only in civil cases).

49
Q

Hearsay Exceptions - Catch-All

Catch-All Exception

A
  • Under the FRE, a hearsay statement not covered by any exception may be admissible if it is:
    1. trustworthy,
    2. offered to prove a material fact,
    3. more probative than other evidence, and
    4. notice is given to the opposing party.
  • CA does not have a catch-all hearsay exception.
50
Q

Confrontation Clause

Confrontation Clause (6th Amendment)

A
  • The 6th Amendment’s Confrontation Clause gives a criminal defendant the right to confront W against him.
  • The use of an out-of-court statement violates the 6th Amendment when:
    1. the statement is “testimonial”, and
    2. the declarant is unavailable for cross-examination.
51
Q

Privileges

Privilege & Eavesdroppers

A

Unknown eavesdroppers DO NOT destroy privilege. However, known or anticipated eaves droppers WILL destroy privilege.

52
Q

Privileges

Attorney-Client Privilege

A
  • The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between an attorney and client from disclosure if the communication was made to facilitate legal services.
  • The privilege does not apply when:
    1. the legal services are sought for a crime or fraud, or
    2. there is litigation between the attorney and client.
  • The client holds the privilege, and only the client can waive it.
53
Q

Privileges

Attorney Work Product

A
  • The attorney work product doctrine protects from disclosure materials prepared by an attorney in anticipation of or during litigation.
  • The purpose of the doctrine is to protect an attorney’s mental impressions, notes, or opinions.
  • Work product that does not include the attorney’s mental impressions, notes, or opinions may be discoverable when the opposing party demonstrates a substantial need for the material.
54
Q

Privileges

Confidential Marital Communications

A
  • One spouse may not disclose the confidential communications of the other spouse made during the marriage.
  • Both spouses hold the privilege.
  • The privilege applies even after divorce.
55
Q

Privileges

Spousal Immunity

A
  • A witness-spouse may refuse to testify against his or her spouse (FRE: in a criminal case; CA: in both civil and criminal cases).
  • The privilege ends after divorce.

Cal Bar Essay Outlines (13 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions