evidence - critical pass Flashcards
methods of impeachment
- bias/interest
- capacity (sensory deficiencies)
- character for untruthfulness (reputation, opinion, specific conduct)
- prior criminal conviction
- prior inconsistent statement
- specific contradiction
foundation requirement for prior inconsistent statement
extrinsic evidence can be introduced to prove a prior inconsistent statement only if, at some point:
- the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement; and
- the adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about the statement
a witnesses credibility may be attacked by
any party, including the party calling her
when does the foundational req for proving a prior extrinsic evidence need to be brought up at trial? essay
can be given before or after the introduction of extrinsic evidence under the FRE
exceptions to the foundation req (when it is not req’d)
opportunity to explain is not required for proving an inconsistent statement by hearsay declarant.
foundational req for bias impeachment method
Foundation requirement — W must be questioned on cross-exam regarding the facts that show bias or interest so that W has an opportunity to explain or deny
what is the sensory deficiencies impeachment method
A witness may be impeached by showing, either on cross-examination or by extrinsic evidence, that their faculties of perception and recollection were so impaired as to make it doubtful that they could have perceived those facts. A witness may also be impeached by showing that they had no knowledge of the facts to which they testified.
examples of sensory deficiencies impeachment
bad eyesight/hearing/memory
under influence of drugs/alcohol
what is specific contradiction impeachment method
The cross-examiner, while questioning the witness, can try to make the witness admit that they lied or were mistaken about some fact they testified to during direct examination.
if during cross, the examiner gets the witness to admit that they lied or were mistaken, can extrinsic evidence still come in to prove the contradiction?
yes allowed unless the contradiction is collateral (no significant relevance)
character for honesty may be pertinent to
robbery/theft
character for gentleness may be relevant to
assault and robbery
opinion testimony must be…
the personal opinion of the person testifying
reputation testimony must be…
representative of the community at large (not just what a few friends think of you)
impeachment of prior criminal convictions: less than 10 years, felony, criminal D
reverse 403 - admissible if probative value outweighs prejudicial effect
impeachment of prior criminal convictions: less than 10 years, felony, NOT criminal D
regular 403 -admissible unless probative value substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect
impeachment of prior conviction: less than 10 years and crime of dishonesty (any crime)
admissible and not subject to 403 (coming in)
if more than 10 years, how do you know if the evidence is admissible
admissible only if the probative value supported by specific facts substantially outweighs prejudicial effect AND
offering party provides notice
when does the 10 year period start to run for prior criminal convictions
from the later of conviction or release
when can you impeach someone with a misdemeanor?
only when it involves dishonesty/false statement
2 types of crimes used for impeachmenet
1) felony
2) crimes involving dishonesty/false statement
a conviction cannot be used to impeach a witness if the conviction was subject to a pardon and either:
- Pardon based on rehabilitation and no subsequent felony conviction, OR
- Pardon based on innocence
what is generally NOT admissible for impeachment for prior criminal conviction
juvenile convictions
can otherwise inadmissible evidence be used to impeach someone and prove bias?
yes like mentioning an arrest to prove bias
(ex. currently waiting on being charged so may be bias to testify favorably)
hearsay declarant and impeachment
hearsay declarant can be impeached to the same extent as in court witness (even if not present at trial)
2 situations where to use a prior consistent statement to rehabilitate:
- When witness attacked with charge of lying or exaggerating because of some motive and some statement pre-dates motive
- When witness impeached on other non character ground (such as inconsistency or faulty memory)
federal rules of evidence do not apply in:
1) 1) preliminary fact determinations by judge
2) grand jury proceeding
3) other misc proceedings (sentencing, extradition, bail, probation)
Relevance test
Has any tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence more or less probable with or without the evidence
403 test
Judge has discretion to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by:
Risk of unfair prejudice (danger jury will decide case on emotional basis, gory pics/graphic photos)
Confusion of the issues
Misleading the jury
Needlessly presenting cumulative evidence
Waste of time
Undue delay
is the list of things in 403 an exhaustive list?
yes dont let the examiners tell you otherwise
the 403 test favors
admissibility of the evidence
when can prior similar occurrences be admissible:
P’s accident history to show something other than propensity
Evidence of prior accidents or injuries under substantially similar circumstances or same defendant can be admissible to prove:
- existence of dangerous condition
- Dangerous condition was the cause of the present injury; and
- Notice to D of the dangerous condition (if the other accident occurred before the plaintiff’s accident)
evidence of absence of complaints is admissable to show
D’s lack of knowledge of the danger
habit evidence
Admissible as circumstance evidence that person/org acted in accordance with habit on occasion
ex. brushing teeth
what to look out for for habit evidence
automatic/reflexive = habit evidence
extra litigative conduct: evidence of party’s insurance is inadmissible to prove
1) negligence
2) wrongful conduct
extra lit: evidence of insurance is ADMISSIBLE to prove:
1) impeachment
2) ownership/control (if disputed)
3) 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 (“dont worry, my insurance will pay it off.”)
evidence of subsequent remedial measures are not admissible to prove
1) negligence
2) culpable conduct,
2) defect in design
4) failure to warn
subsequent remedial measures CAN be admissible to prove:
1) ownership or control
2) rebut a claim that precraution was not feasible (needs to be DISPUTED FIRST!!!!)
3) opposing party has destroyed evidence
settlements, offers to settle, and negotiotations are inadmissible to:
1) prove validity or amount of claim
2) impeach by prior inconsistent statement or contradiction (but impeachment with bias prejudice)
evidence of settlement is admissible to impeach a witness on the ground of
bias
settlement offers and negotiations are only excluded if:
there was a disputed claim or some indication that a party was going to make a claim
for settlements and negotiations, the claim must have been in dispute as to either
1) liability
2) amount
evidence of what relating to plea discussions is generally inadmissible:
1) offers to plead guilty
2) withdrawn guilty pleas
3) no contest pleas
4) statements in plea discussions
an actual guilty plea is generally..
admissible as a statement of an opposing party
evidence that a party has paid or offered to pay an injured party’s ____ expenses is inadmissible to prove
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
admissions of fact that accompany an offer to pay
admissions of fact that accompany an offer to pay med expenses is generally admissible! separate them.
I’ll pay your medical expenses if you drop the case. admissible?
the more restrictive rule for settlement negotiations applies; meaning, any accompanying statements or conduct would be excluded along with the offer.
this is an offer to settle and pay medical expenses!
methods of proving character
1) opinion
2) reputation
3) specific acts
3 ways for criminal D to open the door for character evidence:
1) D’s own pertinent trait. prosecution can offer evidence to rebut
2) victim’s pertinent trait, prosecution can rebut with evidence of D and victim’s pertinent trait
3) in homicide case, D claims victim was first aggressor, prosecution can put on evidence of victim’s peacefulness
in crim and civil cases, victim of rape’s past behavior is generally inadmissible except:
1) CRIM CASES: specific instances of a victim’s sexual behavior are admissible to prove that someone other than the defendant is the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence.
Also, specific instances of sexual behavior between the victim and the defendant are admissible by the prosecution for any reason and by the defense to prove consent.
2) CIVIL CASES: when probative value substantially outweighs unfair prejudice (in favor of EXCLUSION of evidence) - reverse 403
character evidence is generally not allowed in civil cases except in:
1) defamation
2) negligent entrustment/hiring
3) child custody
All forms reputation/opinion/specific conduct is all alllowed
for character evidence, specific conduct can only come in
1) on cross
2) when element of a claim in civil case (defamation, negligent entrustment, etc)
valid non propensity purposes:
1) motive
2) opportunity
3) intent
4) absence of mistake
5) lack of accident
6) identity
7) common scheme or plan
MIMIC
Motive
Intent
Mistake (absence of)
Identity
Common scheme or plan
if the prosecution wants to use a non propensity purpose, what needs to happen
prosecution needs to give notice. D does not need to ask for it.
D’s similar misconduct in sex-crime cases are admissible for..
any relevant purpose (even to show propensity) in civil or crim case involving alleged sexual assault or child molestation
when you see a writing, think of what 3 issues
1) authentication
2) BER
3) hearsay