General Principles of Evidence Flashcards
The Federal Rules of Evidence apply to:
- all trials, civil and criminal
- Bankruptcy
- Admiralty
- Contempt proceedings, but not summary contempt
The Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to:
- 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
Context of the Evidence
- 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
Limited Purpose
- 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
When Evidence is Relevant
- 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
Relevance PDC Rule
- 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.
Admissibility of Relevant Edividence
- 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.
FRE 403- Pragmatic Relevance
- 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
- Unfair prejudice
- Bad for the court/judge:
- Waste of time
- Undue Delay
- Unduly cumulative
- Unfair surprise does not violate 403. Judges have a lot of discretion.
Burden to prove relevance
- 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.
Recurring Relevance scenarios general rule
- 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
Recurring Relevance scenarios
similar occurrences
- 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
Recurring Relevance scenarios
prior accidents or claims
- 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
Recurring Relevance scenarios
other accidents involving the same instrumentality
- 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
Intent or State of Mind
Similar occurrences admissible to show intent to discriminate
Habit Definition
someones regular response to a specific set of circumstances
Habit vs. Character evidence
- Character evidence- inadmissible to prove conduct in conformity with incident.
- Habit is not character
Admissibility of Habit Evidence
Habit is admissible to as some evidence of how person or org acted in the date in question in litigation
Two defining characteristics of habit
- 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.
Business Routine
Established routine or practice of an organization.
Admissible just like habit