Evidence General Import Flashcards
Evidence Approach 3 steps
- Determine type of case - civil or criminal?
- Situate the proceeding - direct, cross, or re-direct?
- Determine about purpose for which the evidence is being offered - Prove something substantive, discredit a witness, prove propensity (Character Evidence)?
Initial relevance question
Does it tend to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the determination of the action (materiality) more or less probable than it would be without the evidence (probativeness)
Grounds for excluding under 403
Unfair prejudice, cumulative evidence, waste of time, misleading juries (confusion of issues).
“Of Consequence”
For evidence to be relevant, it must be offered to prove a fact of consequence in the case.
Normal 403 balancing
PV is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice (PV is substantially outweighed by ugly phoenix) (PVsoUP). AKA the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value.
Policy based relevance exclusions
Liability insurance;
subsequent remedial measures;
settlement offers and accompanying admissions;
offers to pay medical expenses;
withdrawn guilty pleases and accompanying statements
Liability insurance
a. Inadmissible to prove—negligence, ability to pay, or other wrongful action
b. Admissible to prove—ownership or control, impeachment, or as part of an admission of liability.
Liability insurance is admissible to prove (3 WAYS:
• To prove ownership or control, if disputed;
• To impeach a witness (usually to show their bias); or
• 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 (for example, “Don’t worry, my insurance will pay it off”)
Subsequent remedial measures
Inadmissible to prove (3)
admissible to prove (3)
a. Inadmissible to prove—negligence, culpable conduct, or defect in a product or its design, or a need for a warning or instruction.
b. Admissible to prove—ownership or control, feasibility of the repair (to rebut a claim that precautions were impossible), or destruction of evidence.
SUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES NOT admissable to prove
Evidence of repairs or other precautionary measures made following an injury is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product or its design, or a need for a warning or instruc- tion.
SUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES ARE admissable to prove (3)
To prove ownership or control, if disputed;
To rebut a claim that a precaution was not feasible; or
To prove that the opposing party has destroyed evidence
CIVIL SETTLEMENTS, Settlement offers, and accompanying admissions of fact.
Inadmissible to prove: (2)
Exceptions (2)?
a. Inadmissible to prove or disprove validity or amount of disputed claim, or to impeach by prior inconsistent statement or contradiction. Conduct or state- ments made in the course of negotiating a compromise—including direct admissions of liability—are also inadmissible for these purposes.
b. Exception—preexisting information not protected
ALSO, Evidence of settlement is admissible to impeach a witness on the ground of bias.
c. Exception 2 - Civil Dispute with Government Authority: conduct or statements made during compromise negotiations regarding a civil dispute with a govern- mental regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority are not excluded when offered in a criminal case.
The public policy exclusion for settlements and negotiations only kicks in if…
there was a claim or some indication that a party was going to make a claim (although the party need not have actually filed suit). Furthermore, the claim must have been in dispute as to either (1) liability or (2) amount.. DISPUTED CLAIM REQUIRED.
PLEA DISCUSSIONS
These are generally inadmissible in any criminal or civil case against the defendant who made the plea or participated in the discussions:
• Offers to plead guilty;
• Withdrawn guilty pleas;
• Actual pleas of nolo contendere (“no contest”); or
• Statements of fact made during any of the above plea discussions
Is an actual guilty plea (not withdrawn) admissible?
An actual guilty plea (not withdrawn) is generally admissible in related litigation as a statement of an opposing party (see the Hearsay module).
Payments or offers to pay medical expenses
a. Inadmissible to prove liability/culpable conduct. E 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.
b. But note: Accompanying statements of fact are admissible (unlike rule for settlement negotiations).
BUT: look for offer to pay medical expenses that is also an offer to settle (rule for settlement negotiations applies; meaning, any accompanying statements or conduct would be excluded along with the offer.
Statement made in connection with offer to pay medical expenses
ADMISSABLE
Statement made in connection with offer to settle
INADMISSABLE.
403 balancing - Judge has broad discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by
a. Unfair prejudice
b. Confusion of issues
c. Misleading the jury
d. Undue consumption of time/undue delay
e. Needless presentation of cumulative (repetitive) evidence
403 balancing
discretion to exclude it if its probative value is substantially outweighed …
SIMILAR OCCURRENCES
Some situations allow prior similar occurrences to be admitted:
Similar Accidents or Injuries Caused by Same Condition
Similar Accidents or Injuries Caused by Same Condition
Evidence of prior accidents or injuries caused by the same event or condition and occurring under substantially similar circumstances is admissible to prove: (1) the existence of a dangerous condition, (2) that the dangerous condition was the cause of the present injury, and (3) that the defendant had notice of the dangerous condition (if the other accident occurred before the plaintiff’s accident).
Plaintiff’s Prior Accidents or Claims
Evidence of a plaintiff’s prior accidents or claims is usually inadmis- sible; all it demonstrates is that the plaintiff is litigious or accident-prone.
a. Exceptions for Pre-Existing Condition or Prior False Claims: However, such evidence might be admissible in certain circumstances:
• Evidence of prior accidents may be admissible where the cause of the plaintiff’s damages is at issue. If the plaintiff previously injured the same part of their body, the evidence may be admitted to show that the plaintiff’s condition is attributable (in whole or in part) to the prior injury rather than the current accident.
• Evidence that a plaintiff has made previous similar false claims is usually relevant to prove that the present claim is likely to be false.
Previous Similar Acts to Prove Intent
Similar conduct previously committed by a party may be admissible to prove the party’s present motive or intent in the current case.