Evidence Flashcards
What is Logical Relevance?
Evidence that has any tendency to make a
material fact more or less probable than it would be without the
evidence.
What are the Warning Signals that Evidence may not be logically relevant (i.e., may be too remote)?
Evidence involves some other 1) Time 2) Event 3) Person than the one involved directly in litigation.
Pl. eats at Def. restaurant and gets sick. Pl. offers evidence that others who ate “the same type of food” at same time at restaurant also got sick. Admissible. Why or why not?
Admissible, even though involves some other persons and events, it proves cause and effect.
Pl. drives into bridge abutment and sues City that built and maintained bridge. Def. City seeks to show Pl. has on four other occasions driven into stationary objects and
sued. Admissible, why or why not?
No, as a General Rule: Pl.’s prior accidents or claims not admissible.
When are Pl.’s prior accidents or claims admissible?
- To show a common plan and scheme of fraud.
2. To show that damage to P was from another, prior accident.
Pl. seeks to show that in the last year six other drivers drove into the same bridge abutment involved in this case. Admissible, why or why not?
Admissible to show that D had knowledge of a dangerous instrumentality.
The general rule is that other accidents involving the same instrumentality which occurred under the same or similar
circumstances are admissible.
Pl. sues claiming pattern of gender discrimination in hiring. Def. employer denies intent to discriminate and claims that absence of women employees is because no women applicants were qualified. Pl. offers to show that other well-qualified women were denied employment. Admissible?
Yes, evidence of other people’s experience and events is relevant to infer D’s intent from this prior conduct.
Pl. ingests mouse while drinking Cola and sues Def. Bottler. Bottler defends on ground that it is impossible for mouse to get into Cola. Pl. offers evidence of another recent incident in which a mouse was found in Cola.
Admissible, why or why not?
Even though involves another event, it’s admissible to rebut a defense of impossibility.
When is the sale price of other chattels or parcels of real property admissible?
Even though involves another event and therefore generally not relevant, it’s admissible if the property is of the same general:
- description
- time period
- geographic area
When is habit evidence admissible?
Evidence of a person’s habit (but not general disposition or person’s prior acts not forming a habit) is admissible to prove that on a particular occasion (which is the subject of the litigated event) the person acted in accordance with the habit.
What is habit? How different from disposition or prior act evidence?
A habit is
- specific and
- recurs sufficiently to be habitual
What can business routine be used to prove?
Evidence of an organization’s routine practice is admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the organization acted in accordance with the routine practice.
The routine practice of an organization is
admissible just like habit.
What is an industrial or trade custom admissible to prove?
admissible as non-conclusive evidence of standard of care.
Is evidence that D carries liability insurance admissible?
Depends on what’s the purpose for it?
Not admissible to show
(a) person acted negligently or wrongfully or (b) ability to pay.
Admissible when relevant to:
(a) show ownership or control
(b) impeach credibility of witness by showing interest or bias.
Def. denies ownership of building where Pl. was injured. Pl. offers to show that Def. made repairs to the building. Admissible, why or why not?
The general rule is that measures taken
that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product’s design or a need for a warning or instruction.
Here, though, the evidence is admissible because it shows ownership and control that’s disputed.
Pl. walks into a glass door that was practically invisible. Def. contends there was and is no way to avoid such an accident. Pl. offers to show that, after the accident, Def. put red stickers on the door to make them more visible. Admissible, why or why not?
The general rule is that measures taken
that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product’s design or a need for a warning or instruction.
Here, though, the evidence is admissible because it shows feasibility of precautionary measures,. which is disputed.
For what purposes are evidence of settlements allowed or not allowed?
compromises (actual or offers), offers to plead guilty in a criminal case, withdrawn pleas of guilty, pleas of nolo contendere are all not admissible to prove fault, liability or amount of damage.
Without prior contact, neighbor approaches Pl.-to-be and says “Are you the fellow who was bitten by my dog? Let’s settle.” In later lawsuit Pl. offers to testify to neighbor’s admission of dog ownership. Admissible?
Yes, because there must be “a claim” before there can be a settlement. Here there’s no claim because there are insufficient facts in the hypo to show that the claim has matured.
Def. says to Pl. “I admit that I owe you the full
amount of $10,000 on the promissory note, but if you want your money you’ll have to sue me for it. On the other hand, if you want to settle now, I’ll pay you $5,000 for a full release.” Can Pl. show that Def. admitted liability on the note?
Yes, because there must be “a claim” before there can be a settlement. Here there’s no claim because there’s no dispute as to either
liability or amount.
Def. says “It was all my fault. Let me pay your
hospital bill.” Admissible?
Yes. An offer to pay medical expenses is not admissible even though it is not a settlement offer. But if an admission of fact accompanies a naked offer to pay hospital or medical expenses, the admission may be admitted.
When whether character evidence or prior acts is relevant and admissible is an issue, what are the five preliminary questions that I should ask?
(1) What type of case is it civil or criminal? If criminal, what type and is P or D offering and at what point in the trial?
(2) Whom is the evidence about: Pl, Def, victim?
(3) What trait of character or prior act is involved?
(4) What is the purpose of offer of evidence?
(5) If admissible, what method is allowed to prove that character or prior acts?
Pl. sues Dan for personal injury damages
alleging negligence arising out of an automobile accident. Pl. offers a witness to testify that Dan has a reputation in the
community for recklessness. Admissible?
Rule: In civil cases, character evidence is not admissible when offered as circumstantial evidence to infer conduct at the time of the litigated event.
Application: 1. Civil case. 2. Recklessness 3. To show that because D has a reputation for reckless conduct, he must have acted in the same reckless way here. Therefore, not admissible.
Pl. seeks to testify that he has been driving for 40 years without ever being previously involved in an accident. Admissible?
Rule: In civil cases, character evidence is not admissible when offered as circumstantial evidence to infer conduct at the time of the litigated event.
Application: 1. Civil case. 2. Cautiousness 3. To show that because D has been cautious in the past he must have been cautious here. Therefore, not admissible.
Grutz calls Yuckl “a crook.” Pl. Yuckl sues Def. Grutz for defamation seeking $1,000,000 for damages to Yuckl’s reputation. Def. Grutz seeks to show that Pl. Yuckl has on three prior occasions stolen money from his employer. Def. Grutz also seeks to show that, even before the alleged defamation, Pl. Yuckl had a reputation for being dishonest. Admissible?
Rule: Character evidence is admissible in a civil case when the character of a person (party) is itself a material issue in the case.
Application:
1. Civil case.
2. Dishonesty
3. To show that because P is in fact dishonest, D has a defense (truth of the defamatory statement), a material issue in the case.
Therefore, admissible.
4. May be shown by specific acts, opinion, or reputation evidence.