Exclusionary Rule Distinctions

Question 1

Subsequent Remedial Measures

Answer 1

Federal Law - When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measure is not admissible to prove (1) negligence, (2) culpable conduct, (3) a defect in a product or design, or (4) a need for warning or instruction.

GA - Georgia doesn’t allow it for negligence or culpable conduct, but allows it for a defect in product or design or a need for a warning when suing based on strict liability (strict products liability)

Question 2

Statements and Conduct by Health Care Providers in Malpractice Cases

Answer 2

In Georgia CIVIL cases alleging an unanticipated outcome of medical care, statement of conduct expressing sympathy, apology, regret, mistake, error, or a general sense of benevolence made by a health care provider to the patient, the patient’s representative, or the patient’s relative are inadmissible and do not constitute an admission of liability.

Question 3

Involuntary Confessions

Answer 3

Georgia evidence holds that involuntary confessions are inadmissible, even if they meet a hearsay exception.

A confession may be considered involuntary if law enforcement or the prosecutor induced it by giving the accused even the slightest hope of benefit (reduced charges, lighter sentence, immunity) or the remotest fear of injury.

Question 4

Wiretapping, Eavesdropping, and Surveillance

Answer 4

Any evidence obtaining in violation of Georgia’s wiretapping and surveillance statutes is inadmissible except for the purpose of proving a violation of the statute

Question 5

Criminal History Record Information

Answer 5

In a CIVIL proceeding against an EMPLOYER, its employees, or its agents, based on conduct of a current or former employee, a person’s criminal history record information is not admissible in any of the following circumstances:

1) the nature of the criminal history record information is not relevant to the facts of the case or to the veracity of the witness;

2) the criminal history information is for an arrest or charge that did not result in a conviction; or

3) prior to the act giving rise to the proceeding, the criminal history record information was restricted or sealed by law, or a pardon for such conduct was granted.

MEANING - to be admissible in these circumstances, the criminal history record must be relevant, resulted in a conviction, and not have been sealed or subject to a pardon prior to the act giving rise to the proceeding.