Pg 6

Question 1

What is the definition of probity for relevance?

Answer 1

Does the evidence have any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less likely?

Question 2

What does it mean when you say a brick is not a wall for the probative value of evidence regarding relevance?

Answer 2

A piece of evidence doesn’t have to prove the whole case to be relevant, it just needs to make some claim or defence or witness’ credibility a bit more likely or less likely to be met than it would be without the evidence

Question 3

Does it matter for probity for relevance whether it makes the fact more or less likely?

Answer 3

No, it doesn’t matter which way it cuts as long as it moves the ball a little bit about something that matters to the case

Question 4

Arguments about the strength of evidence go to what instead of admissibility?

Answer 4

To weight or the importance the jury should give it during their deliberation

Question 5

Does the weight of an argument factor into relevance?

Answer 5

No

Question 6

How much probity is required to be sufficient for relevance?

Answer 6

Any minimal probity

Question 7

If evidence is probative of one material issue, even if it’s also probative of immaterial issues, is that enough to be admitted?

Answer 7

Yes

Question 8

What’s the difference between the probative value and materiality for relevance?

Answer 8

– Materiality: this is based on the elements of the cause of action or defences and depends on the substantive law whether it is relevant
– probity: this is based on logic and common sense to see if the evidence relates to the point being made

Question 9

Is it necessary that evidence is conclusive to be considered probative for relevance?

Answer 9

No

Question 10

Under FRE 402 relevant evidence is admissible unless what things say otherwise?

Answer 10

The constitution, a federal statute, FRE, or rules from the Supreme Court

Question 11

Is irrelevant evidence admissible?

Answer 11

No

Question 12

What are the two types of relevant evidence?

Answer 12

Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence

Question 13

What is direct evidence?

Answer 13

When the only inference that has to be made to establish a fact of consequence is the truth of the matter asserted and these facts are direct evidence of an element of the claim or defence

Question 14

What type of evidence is the following statement, “I saw X shoot B.“

Answer 14

This is direct evidence that is offered to prove the shooting. If it is believed, it proves a fact without needing to draw any inferences

Question 15

If you were trying to prove that the defendant was going 120 km an hour, what would be good direct evidence of this?

Answer 15

A radar gun that said 120 km an hour

Question 16

What is circumstantial evidence?

Answer 16

Evidence that is offered to establish a fact of consequence where an inference in addition to the truth of the matter must be made. This evidence is offered for some further proposition based on an inference (you must draw an inference to prove a fact).

Question 17

What type of evidence is this? Testimony that X fled the scene

Answer 17

Direct evidence of the flight from the scene, circumstantial evidence of a murderous act (because you have to make a further inference about why he was fleeing)

Question 18

How does a burglary where the defendant’s prints are on items constitute circumstantial evidence?

Answer 18

It requires you to infer that he touched these things because he stole them

Question 19

What is tying up or conditional admissibility?

Answer 19

Evidence that is not relevant without a fact being established first, so courts admit the evidence subject to the attorney proving up that fact later

Question 20

If a coroner needs to testify that a victim has stab wounds, but he can’t testify that the victim is the victim, which can only come from a family member later, is it likely that an attorney will be a permitted to tie up that evidence?

Answer 20

Yes

Question 21

If an attorney never does tie up, what happens?

Answer 21

The jury has already heard testimony that they shouldn’t have heard, so the judge tells them to disregard it

Question 22

What is the sufficiency standard that applies to tying up?

Answer 22

An attorney must give sufficient evidence that a jury could find the preliminary fact to be true before they can consider the conditional fact that it’s based on

Question 23

What is something that cannot be proved up?

Answer 23

Personal knowledge of the witness, because that is a foundational fact that cannot be proved up after testimony about a subject is given. Personal knowledge must be established before the witness can testify about a matter

Question 24

Rule 403 favours what?

Answer 24

Admitting evidence. Exclusion is used sparingly since that is an extraordinary remedy

Question 25

Who has the burden of exclusion for rule 403?

Answer 25

The objecting party

Question 26

When rule 403 is considered, how is it viewed?

Answer 26

The probative force and prejudice are viewed in the light most favourable to the proponent and the court gives the evidence its maximum reasonable probative force and minimum reasonable prejudicial value

Question 27

If evidence is probative of more than one proposition, what happens?

Answer 27

A court can admit it for whatever purpose is permissible