Recurring Relevance Patterns

Question 1

Determining Admissibilty of Evidence

Answer 1

1. Is evidence Relevant (any tendency to make a material fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence);
2. Is there Proper Foundation (witnesses competent? evidence authentic? realibility of scientific test established?)
3. Is Evidence in Proper Form (questions properly phrased? answers within reqs. of lay and experpt opinions? docs. comply w/ best evidence rule?)
4. Is evidence beyond application of, or w/in exception to, exclusionary rules? (discretionary exclusion for prejudice, policy based exclusions, privelege, hearsay, parol evidence)

If YES to ALL–Admissible

Question 2

Evidence NOT Logically Relevant

Answer 2

Warning Signals: Evidence may not be logically relevant (i.e., may be too remote) if evidence involves some other

1) Time
2) Event
3) Person

than the one involved directly in litigation

Question 3

Discretionary or Policy-Based Relevance: PA DISTINCTION

Answer 3

Even relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following:

a. unfair prejudice
b. confusion of the issues
c. misleading the jury
d. undue delay
e. wasting time
f. needlessly presenting cumulative evidence

PA DISTINCTION: merely outweigh

Question 4

Causation: to prove cause and effect

Answer 4

ADMISSIBLE: Similar Occurrences - (where evidence is admissible even though it does involve some other time, some other event or some other person not directly involved in litigation.)

Question 5

Prior Accidents or Claims

Answer 5

Plaintiffs prior accidents or claims not admissible. BUT

1. admittable to show proof of common plan or scheme of fraud

2. admittable when relevant to issue of damages to plaintiff

ALSO

Other accidents involving the same instrumentality which occurred under the same or similar circumstances are admissible TO SHOW:

1. notice or knowledge
2. dangerous and defective

Question 6

Intent or State of Mind in Issue

Answer 6

Evidence to infer intent from prior conduct is admissible to show Intent or State of Mind in Issue (i.e. no discrimination b/c no qualified women to hire BUT evidence that well-qualified women were denied employment)

Question 7

Rebuttal Evidence

Answer 7

Rebuttal Evidence is admissible to Rebut defense of impossibility/

Question 8

Comparable Sales to Establish Value

Answer 8

Sale price of other chattels or parcels of real property admissible if:

1. other sales involve same general description as yours
2. occurred at same time
3. occurred at same place

Question 9

Habit Evidence

Answer 9

Evidence of a person’s habit is admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the habit. (1. Dispostion evidence not admissible (disposition to be careful etc.) 2. Prior act evidence not admissible)

HABIT: (1) specifically detailed conduct (2) that recurs a lot (usually more than a handful of times)

HABIT LANGUAGE (always-instinctively-invariably-automatically)

Question 10

Business Routine

Answer 10

The routine practice of an organization is admissible just like habit. Evidence of an organization’s routine practice is admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the organization acted in accordance with the routine practice.

Question 11

Industrial Trade or Custom

Answer 11

admissible as non-conclusive evidence of standard of care. NOT Conclusive on liability issues though

Question 12

Liability Insurance

Answer 12

General rule: Not admissible to show person acted negligently or wrongfully or to show ability to pay.

Exceptions: Admissible when relevant to:

a) show ownership and control
b) impeach credibility of witness by showing interest or bias

Question 13

Evidence of Subsequent Remedial Measures

Answer 13

When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product’s design or a need for a warning or instruction.

Exceptions: But the court may admit subsequent remedial measures for another purpose such as impeachment or – if disputed – (1) proving ownership, control or (2) the feasibility of precautionary measures.

Question 14

Evidence of Settlements

Answer 14

Evidence of settlements not admissible to prove fault, liability or amount of damage.

1. A broad rule of exclusion that covers:

• actual compromises
• offers to compromise
• offers to plead guilty in a criminal case
• withdrawn pleas of guilty
• pleas of nolo contendere

1. Admissions of fact, liability or damage made in course of offer to compromise a claim disputed as to liability or as to amount are not admissible.
2. Limitations:

• Must have a CLAIM disputed as to either liability or amount
• An offer to pay medical expenses is not admissible even though it is not a settlement offer. But if an admission of fact accompanies a naked offer to pay hospital or medical expenses, the admission may be admitted.