Evidence Flashcards
Timeline of an American Court Case
Case: Patty Plaintiff was walking through Times Square on her way home from a Broadway show. While crossing a street, Patty was struck by a car with NJ license plates driven by Mike. Patty was taken to a nearby hospital where she was treated by emergency room doctors for extensive injuries. Patty incurred $200.000 in medical expenses and lost wages due to the incident with Mike; Patty now seeks reimbursement.
Timeline of a case: A. Preliminary Events B. The Complaint C. Pre-Trial Events D. Trial E. Post-Trial Events
a.- Preliminary Events
There are:
- Plaintiff retains a lawyer
- Lawyer sends a demand letter to the defendant
- Defendant or his representative replies to the demand letter
- The parties may discuss a settlement or see a mediator.
b.- The Complaint
There are:
- Assuming the parties do not settle, Plaintiff lawyer prepares a complaint. The complaint describes the car accident, the parties to the case, and the basis for the court's jurisdiction.
- In this pattern, assume that Plaintiff lawyer files the complaint on behalf of his/her client in the Supreme Court of the State of NY.
c.- Pre-Trial Events
There are:
- Under these facts, the Defendant could remove the case to federal court. Assume the case remains in the SC of NY.
- The Defendant then answers the complaint. The Defendant could respond to the complaint by moving to dismiss the compliant.
Motion to Dismiss: Under CPLR §3211, the court properly grants a motion to dismiss when, taking the allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court finds that the complaint is defective and cannot be maintained.
- Alternatively, the Defendant can formally answer the complaint. A formal answer to a complaint is a line-by-line response to deny, admit, or deny knowledge (DKI) or information about the allegations in the complaint.
- The case then move into discovery where evidence is collected by both parties. Discovery is intended to: 1. streamline the trial, and 2. allow informed settlement discussions. The discovery process typically includes requests for admissions (RFA), interrogatories, depositions, physical examinations, requests fro production of documents (RFP), and/or preparation of expert reports.
- Motion for Summary judgment may be filed. Assuming motions for summary judgment are denied, a trial date is set and the case move to trial.
Motion for Summary Judgment, Under CPLR §3212, the court properly grants a motion for summary judgment when, after considering the affidavits and any other materials the parties submit, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, it decides that neither the plaintiff nor defendant presents any triable issue of fact, and the dispute may be decided entirely as a matter of law.
d. Trial
There are:
- The trial jury is selected from a venire panel, made up of local citizenry, during a process known as voir dire.
- Once the jury is selected, both parties present their opening statements.
- The Plaintiff lawyer calls the first plaintiff's witness for direct examination. The Defendant attorney may cross-examine the witness. Plaintiff lawyer may then redirect the witness. This process repeats for each plaintiff's witness.
- After the plaintiff's entire presentation of evidence, Plaintiff lawyer rests his case and the Defendant's attorney then presents his case. Plaintiff lawyer may cross-examine the defense's witnesses; The Defendant's attorney may redirect the witnesses.
- When the Defendant's attorney rests his case, Plaintiff's lawyer may rebut the case made by the Defendant's attorney.
- After rebuttals by the Plaintiff's lawyer, both parties present their closing statements (summations).
- The jury is given instructions by the judge that were discussed in advance by the attorneys for both sides.
- The jury deliberates and reaches a verdict.
e. Post-Trial Events
There are:
- The loser may appeal the verdict.
- The appellate decision may appear in casebooks.
Fundamentals Principles of Evidence
Under common law and the FRE, evidence is every type of proof, presented in court and allowed by the judge, intended to help the fact finder reach a conclusion about facts material to the case.
A. Relevance
B. Discretionary Relevance
C. Evidentiary Exclusions Due to Public Policy
D. Character Evidence
E. Admissibility of Defendant’s Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts- Criminal and Civil Cases
Relevance
The laws of evidence are rules that determine whether proof can be considered by the trier of fact.
The first determination as to whether a piece of proof is admissible is whether it is relevant.
Under the FRE, to be admitted into evidence, a piece of proof must advance a factual finding in some way and be material to an issue in the litigation.
If the proof is not relevant, it is not admissible; If the proof is relevant, it may be admissible. The other laws of evidence will determine whether a relevant piece of proof will ultimately be excluded or admitted.
A.- Defining Relevance
B.- Applying Relevance
Relevance - Defining Relevance
A.- Defining Relevance
Under FRE 401, evidence is relevant if: 1. it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and 2. the fact is of consequence in determining the action.
Evidentiary fact -> Fact of consequence -> Essential element
- Tendency to make a fact more or less probable (advance a factual finding): the courts have adopted a standard of minimal probativity fro relevance; the evidence must simply advance a factual finding in some fashion to be relevant. An item of evidence is relevant if that item makes some fact of consequence in the litigation more or less likely that it would be without that evidence. Not evidence is relevant.
- Fact of Consequence (material): a fact is of consequence, and therefore material, when it relates to a substantive legal issue in the case. It is important to know the essential elements required to prove a cause of action, crime, or defense when applying the rules of evidence. Any fact that advances the inquiry into whether a cause of action, crime or defense has been established is a fact of consequence.
Relevance- Applying Relevance
B.- Applying Relevance
- General Rule- Relevant if directly related to the subject matter of the lawsuit: relevance requires a standard of minimal probavity, evidence of events here is most likely relevant under FRE 401. In contrast, evidence of events that are not directly related to the subject of the lawsuit is less likely relevant, but it can be and often is relevant. Because their relevance may be less obvious, we consider here the ways other events can be relevant.
FRE do nor distinguish between direct evidence (that establishes that the fact it is offered to prove without relying on further inference and is typically communicated by a witness with actual knowledge of a fact of consequence) and circumstantial evidence (relies on inferences to prove a fact of consequence in the case).
- Exceptions- When other events are relevant: similar events between the parties or involving third parties that occurred prior to the events at issue in the case can be relevant circumstantial evidence of facts material to the current litigation. They will thus be admissible unless their admission would violate another evidence rule. Examples of other rules: i.- Proof of causation: if there is a issue of causation, evidence of other similar occurrences may be relevant to prove cause and effect. ii.- Similar false tort claims or similar claims of injury: evidence related to prior tort claims filed by th plaintiff or prior accidents sustained by the plaintiff is typically not allowed if it is offered to show that the plaintiff is litigious and thus likely to file false claims or that the plaintiff is accident prone. However, evidence of similar false claims is likely relevant to prove the existence of a common scheme or plan increasing the likelihood that the present claim is false. Similarly, evidence of similar claims of injury is likely relevant to prove that there was a preexisting injury and so the claim of present injury is false or exaggerated. iii.- Similar accidents or injury caused by the same event: evidence of these is relevant to prove that a dangerous condition was present, the defendant had notice of the defect, and that condition was the cause of the current injury of the issue. iv.- Proof that rebuts claims of impossibility: evidence of other events may be used to rebut a claim that an event was impossible. v.- Similar sales of property: evidence here may be relevant if used to prove value. Whether the sale is similar, courts look to: 1. property with a similar or matching description, 2. sales that occurred around the same time, 3. sales that occurred in the same geographic location. vi.- Habit evidence: may be relevant to show conduct because a habit is a person's regular practice of meeting a particular kind of situation with a specific type of conduct; habits acts are often semi-automatic in nature. Under the FRE, a court may admit habit evidence to prove that the conduct of the person on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit. It may consist of proof that a person typically acts in a certain way under specific circumstances. Conditions that must be satisfied in order to admit habit: Specific Behavior (general conduct is insufficient); Recurring behavior (the behavior must occur repeatedly); Behavior over a long period of time (behavior must occur over a relatively long period of time and/or in a high percentage of cases); and Behavior that occurs reflexively (behavior will likely occur without thought, although not necessarily if the conduct is sufficiently regular). NY Distinction: is not admissible if the habit at issue tends to go to the carefulness with which a person acted on a particular occasion. However, in a product liability case, evidence of habit may be used to show that a plaintiff used a product in a certain way. vii.- Routine business practice: is relevant to prove that the conduct on a particular occasion was in conformity with a routine business practice. Has the same requirements as to establish a habit. viii.- Industry standards: are relevant to show that a party followed or deviated from an industry-approved standard of care.
Discretionary Relevance
Under FRE 403, the court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
i.- Balancing Test: even if evidence is deemed to be relevant under FRE 401, the trial judge has discretion in determining whether to exclude or admit the piece of evidence, subject to the following balancing test.
The judge will weigh the probative value of the evidence with dangers of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence in determining whether to exclude relevant evidence under FRE 403. Evidence will only be excluded under FRE 403 if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the prejudice of the evidence. In reaching a decision as to whether to exclude on grounds of unfair prejudice, consideration should be given to the probable or lack of effectiveness of a limiting instruction.
ii.- When to exclude Under FRE 403: Case law recognizes that certain circumstances call for the exclusion of evidence that is relevant. Exclusion of evidence for risk of the six cases mentioned above, all find ample support in the authorities. These circumstances entail danger from inducing a decision based largely on emotion to inflaming the jury to merely wasting time. Ex: murder trial with the graphic photographs.
Evidentiary Exclusions Due to Public Policy
Relevant evidence may be excluded because public policy encourages certain kinds of behavior. Such evidence includes:
i. - Proof of liability insurance
ii. - Proof of subsequent remedial measures
iii. - Proof of settlement negotiations
iv. - Proof of offers to plead guilty
v. - Proof of payment of medical bills (and offers to pay such bills).
Evidentiary Exclusions Due to Public Policy
a.-Proof of Liability Insurance (PLI)
i.- When PLI is Not Admissible:
Under FRE 411, proof that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. Public policy exclude this type of evidence because people should not be deterred from purchasing liability insurance for fear that it will be used against them in court. PLI is generally not admissible, because a jury could be more inclined to find fault or to award increased damages if jurors know that an insurance company will pay the damages.
ii.- When PLI is Admissible
Under FRE 411, PLI is admissible for other purposes, such as: to prove witness’s bias or prejudice, or to prove agency, ownership, or control.
Evidentiary Exclusions Due to Public Policy
b.- Proof of Subsequent Remedial Measures
A PSRM is a step taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur.
i.- When PSRM is Not Admissible
Under FRE 407, PSRM is not admissible to prove negligence, guilt, a manufacturing defect, a design defect, or a warning defect. Public policy excludes this type of evidence because people should be encouraged to repair or change potentially dangerous conditions or products without fear that their efforts will be used against them in court.
ii.- When PSRM is Admissible
Under FRE 407, PSRM is admissible for other purposes, such as: to impeach, to prove ownership or control, or to prove the feasibility of precautionary measures.
NY Distinction: Manufacturing defect cases, subsequent remedial measures are admissible to establish that the product was defective at the time the product was made.
Evidentiary Exclusions Due to Public Policy
c.- Proof of Settlement Negotiations
i.- When PSN is Not Admissible
Under FRE 408, PSN is not admissible to prove the validity or amount of a disputed claim, or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement made during the offer to negotiate or the actual settlement negotiation. Public policy excludes this type of evidence because people should be encouraged to settle their claims out of court.
ii.- When PSN is Admissible
Under FRE 408, PSN is admissible if used fro another purposes, such as: to prove a witness’s bias or prejudice, to negate a contention of undue delay, or to prove an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
