Intro and Relevance

Question 1

When federal rules do not apply

Answer 1

Except for rules relating to privilege, the federal rules do not apply in
- the court’s determination of a preliminary question of fact relating to admissibility
- grand jury proceedings, and
- other miscellaneous proceedings - like sentencing, extradition, warrants, preliminary examination in a criminal case, bail, probation

Question 2

Definition of relevance

Answer 2

Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence

For evidence to be relevant, it must be
- material: proposition must be of consequence in the case, and
- probative: evidence has any tendency too make proposition more or less likely

Threshold question and low bar to overcome

Question 3

General rule of admissibility

Answer 3

Irrelevant evidence is always inadmissible

All relevant evidence is admissible, unless
- kept out by some specific exclusionary rule of evidence, or
- Rule 403 discretion to keep it out

Question 4

Rule 403

Answer 4

A trial judge has broad discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of one or more of the following considerations
- danger of unfair prejudice (emotional basis)
- confusion of the issues (creates a side issue)
- misleading the jury (undue weight)
- undue delay
- waste of time
- needless presentation of cumulative evidence

Exhaustive list

Unfair surprise is not a valid ground to exclude relevant evidence

Question 5

Similar occurrences

Answer 5

General rule, if evidence involves some time, event, or person other than that involved in the present case, it is inadmissible

Some exceptions

Question 6

Previously filed similar tort claims

Answer 6

Evidence that a person has previously filed similar tort claims or has been involved in prior accidents is generally inadmissible to show the invalidity of the present claim

But such evidence may be admissible if it tends to show something other than carelessness

Question 7

Admissibility of pl filing similar claims

Answer 7

Pl has made previous similar false claims to prove the present claim is likely to be false

May be admissible

Question 8

Evidence of prior accidents

Answer 8

Evidence of prior accidents may be admissible where the cause of the pl’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 pl’s condition is attributable (in whole or in part) to the prior injury rather than the current accident

Question 9

Similar accidents / injuries caused by same event or condition

Answer 9

Generally, other accidents involving the def are inadmissible

But evidence of prior accidents or injuries caused by the same event or condition and occurring under substantially similar circumstances is admissible to prove
- the existence of a dangerous condition
- that the dangerous condition was the cause of the present injury, and
- that the defendant had notice of the dangerous condition (if the other accident occurred before the plaintiff’s accident)

Question 10

Absence of similar accidents

Answer 10

Many courts are reluctant to admit evidence of the absence of similar accidents to show absence of negligence or lack of a defect

Evidence of the absence of complaints is admissible to show the defendant’s lack of knowledge of the danger

Question 11

Previous similar acts - intent

Answer 11

Similar conduct previously committed by a party may be admissible to prove the party’s present motive or intent in the current case

Question 12

Sales of similar property

Answer 12

Evidence of sales of similar personal or real property around the same time period is admissible to prove the property’s value

Prices quoted in mere offers to purchase generally inadmissible

Question 13

Rebutting claim of impossibility

Answer 13

Requirement that prior occurrences be similar to the litigated act may be related when used to rebut a claim of impossibility

ex: claim that car cannot go above 50 mph - occasions where car did go above are admissible

Question 14

Causation and other times, events, persons

Answer 14

Complicated issues of causation may be established by evidence concerning other times, events, or persons

Question 15

Habit and business routine evidence

Answer 15

Evidence of a person’s habit or evidence of the routine practice of an organization is admissible as circumstantial evidence that the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit on the occasion at issue in the case

Habit describes a person’s regular response to a specific set of circumstances

2 defining characteristics of habit
- frequency of conduct, and
- particularity of circumstances

Question 16

Habit evidence vs. character evidence

Answer 16

Character describes someone’s general disposition or propensity with respect to general traits
- generally not admissible

Habit is routine conduct with frequency and particularity
- look for words like always, invariably, instinctively, automatically

Question 17

Industry custom

Answer 17

Evidence as to how others in the same trade or industry have acted in the recent past may be offered as evidence of the appropriate standard of care - to show how party in case should have acted

But not conclusive on this point because an entire industry may be acting negligently