General Principles of Evidence

Question 1

The Federal Rules of Evidence apply to:

Answer 1

• all trials, civil and criminal
• Bankruptcy
• Admiralty
• Contempt proceedings, but not summary contempt

Question 2

The Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to:

Answer 2

• A preliminary determination of admissibility except for privilege.
  
  • Judge can consider anything in making a preliminary determination of admissibility except for a privileged communication. Can even consider other hearsay evidence.
• Sentencing hearings.
• Grand jury proceedings

Question 3

Context of the Evidence

Answer 3

• For what purpose is the ev being offered?
  
  • Once you know the purp of evidence is, you can decide whether adm or not
• Crim or civil case?
  
  • Rules apply to all cases but they can differ.
  • e.g. confrontation clause doesnt apply in civil cases
• What stage of proceedings are we at?
  
  • Rules differ btw direct and cross

Question 4

Limited Purpose

Answer 4

• Evidence may be admitted for one purpose but not another
• Sometimes pieces of ev will be excluded or admitted in its entirety, or for certain purps only- called doctrine of limited admissibility.
• If the court rules limited admission, they must timely issue a limiting instruction

Question 5

When Evidence is Relevant

Answer 5

• Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to prove or disprove a material fact of consequence
• Relatively low threshold
• Based on logic and common sense-no other formula

Question 6

Relevance PDC Rule

Answer 6

• Evidence is relevant if its PDC- pretty darn clear its relevant
• P: Pleadings- if piece of evidence goes to any issue raised in the pleadings
• D: Defenses- if piece of evidence goes to a defense
• C: Credibility- if it goes to credibility of witness.

Question 7

Admissibility of Relevant Edividence

Answer 7

• Generally, all relevant evidence may be admissible If its irrelevant, its out no matter what.
• Just because its relevant does not mean its going to be admissible.

Question 8

FRE 403- Pragmatic Relevance

Answer 8

• Relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value is substantially outweighted by:
• Bad for the jury/accuracy of outcomes:
  
  • Unfair prejudice
    
    • Unfair- an appeal to jurys bigotry, hatred, sympathy or passions. Something that will inflame the jury and make them act irrationally. Cant just be bad for you.
  • Confusion of the issues
  • Mislead the jury
• Bad for the court/judge:
  
  • Waste of time
  • Undue Delay
  • Unduly cumulative
• Unfair surprise does not violate 403. Judges have a lot of discretion.

Question 9

Burden to prove relevance

Answer 9

• Burden is on offering party to show piece is relevant—but low threshold
• Heavy burden on obj party to convince ct to exclude relevant evidence
• Cannot just be prejudicial, must be unfairly so
• Rule favors admissibility, e.g. gory photos can usually come in.

Question 10

Recurring Relevance scenarios general rule

Answer 10

• General rule: to be relevant, evidence must relate to some time, event, or some person in the present lawsuit.
• If not, inadmissible.
• Exceptions:
  
  • similar occurrences
  • Prior Accidents
  • Other accidents with same instrumentality

Question 11

Recurring Relevance scenarios

similar occurrences

Answer 11

• other similar occurrences may be admitted
  
  • evidence is admissible even though it involves some other time, event, or person not directly involved in the litigation.
  • e.g. can use evidence of someone else getting sick from restaurant food to prove causation for lawsuit against restaurant

Question 12

Recurring Relevance scenarios

prior accidents or claims

Answer 12

• Evidence of Ps prior accidents or claims inadmissible to show P is accident prone or careless.
• Exceptions:
  
  • Can use it to prove source of injury- i.e. other accidents proved his injury.
  • Also admissible to prove common plan or scheme

Question 13

Recurring Relevance scenarios

other accidents involving the same instrumentality

Answer 13

• Other accidents involving the same instrumentality are inadmissible to show D was neg.
• If substantially similar circumstance, admissible to show:
  
  • Notice or knowledge of D
  • Instrumentality is defective or inherently dangerous

Question 14

Intent or State of Mind

Answer 14

Similar occurrences admissible to show intent to discriminate

Question 15

Habit Definition

Answer 15

someones regular response to a specific set of circumstances

Question 16

Habit vs. Character evidence

Answer 16

• Character evidence- inadmissible to prove conduct in conformity with incident.
• Habit is not character

Question 17

Admissibility of Habit Evidence

Answer 17

Habit is admissible to as some evidence of how person or org acted in the date in question in litigation

Question 18

Two defining characteristics of habit

Answer 18

• Frequency.
• Particularty.
  
  • Just because D runs stoplights, signs in general deos not mean he ran stop light and caused accident in question.
  • Witness to prove D ran that same exact red light at least 8 times in 2 weeks?
  • Admissible for habit.
  • Marvin invariably wears his seat belt when he drives is admissible.
    
    • Frequency: invariably.
    • Specificity: only involves his seatbelt
  • Critical words: always, instinctively, invariably, automatically.

Question 19

Business Routine

Answer 19

Established routine or practice of an organization.

Admissible just like habit