Relevance Flashcards
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE
LAW
FED: Federal Rules of Evidence generally apply in federal courts (but not grand jury proceedings or certain other miscellaneous proceedings).
CA:
CEC applies in all civil and criminal cases (but not grand jury proceedings) in CA state courts.
In a federal diversity case, the federal judge must apply the CEC to questions of privilege, competency, and the effect of presumptions.
RELEVANCE
FED:
Evidence is relevant if it tends 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.
CA:
CEC same as Federal Rule except that the evidence must concern a disputed fact.
(Evidence is relevant if it tends to make the existence of any disputed fact of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
CA Prop 8
No corresponding Federal Rule.
CA:
Proposition 8, an amendment to the CA Constitution, provides that all relevant evidence is admissible in a criminal case, even if it is objectionable under the CEC.
However, there are notable exceptions to this rule, including:
court’s discretion to exclude relevant evidence under CEC 352 (discretion balancing);
hearsay law;
privilege law;
limits on character evidence;
the secondary evidence rule (best evidence rule); and
exclusionary rules under the U.S. Constitution (such as the Confrontation Clause).
In other words, these areas of law are not affected by Proposition 8.
COURT’S DISCRETION
TO EXCLUDE RELEVANT
EVIDENCE
FED:
A trial judge has discretion to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. This is called “Rule 403” discretion.
CA:
CEC same as Federal Rule but called “CEC 352.” Proposition 8 does not affect court’s power to exclude evidence under CEC 352.
PUBLIC POLICY EXCLUSIONS
LIABILITY INSURANCE
FED and CA:
Evidence of liability insurance is not admissible to prove negligence but is admissible to prove ownership or control, or to impeach a witness. CEC same as Federal Rule.
PUBLIC POLICY EXCLUSIONS (overview)
FED:
Liability Insurance,
Subsequent Remedial Measures,
Civil Settlements and Settlement negotiations,
Payments of and offers to pay medical expenses
Plea discussions
CA:
* Liability Insurance, (same)
* Subsequent Remedial Measures, (except only in negligence cases, does not apply in defective design in SL cases).
* Civil Settlements and Settlement negotiations,
* + Mediation Proceedings
* Payments of and offers to pay medical expenses (except accompanying admissions of fact are inadmissible).
* Plea discussions (unclear whether prop 8 makes such E admissable)
* Expressions of sympathy in civil cases
* Evidence of Immigration status in certain civil cases. (personal injury, wrongful death)
* Hospital Quality Records in Civil Cases.
* Victim’s or Witness’s act of Prostitution
PUBLIC POLICY EXCLUSIONS
SUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES
FED:
Evidence of safety measures or repairs after an accident is inadmissible to prove negligence or to prove defective design in a products liability case based on a theory of strict liability.
However, it is admissible to prove ownership or control, to rebut a claim of no feasible precaution, or to prove destruction of evidence.
CA: CEC same as Fed Rule except the rule does not apply on the issue of defective design in strict liability cases; it applies only in negligence cases.
Thus, evidence that the product was redesigned is admissible to prove the original design was defective because it is not being offered to prove negligence.
PUBLIC POLICY EXCLUSIONS
CIVIL SETTLEMENTS AND SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
FED: Evidence of settlements or offers to settle is inadmissible to prove the validity or amount of a disputed claim. Statements made during settlement discussions are also inadmissible.
CA: CEC same as Federal Rule. Statements made in connection with mediation proceedings are subject to additional confidentiality rules
PUBLIC POLICY EXCLUSIONS
MEDIATION PROCEEDINGS
FRE: No corresponding Federal Rule. Statements made during mediation proceedings are subject to the general rule for settlement negotiations, above.
CA: CEC includes strict confidentiality rules for mediation proceedings. Generally, statements made and writings prepared in connection with a mediation or mediation consultation are inadmissible in civil cases. This includes communications and documents made outside the mediation as long as they were made for the purpose of the mediation.
PUBLIC POLICY EXCLUSIONS
PAYMENTS OF AND OFFERS TO PAY MEDICAL EXPENSES
FED: Evidence of payments or offers to pay medical expenses is inadmissible to prove liability for the injuries in question. Accompanying admissions of fact, however, are admissible.
CA: CEC same as Federal Rule except accompanying admissions of fact are inadmissible.
PUBLIC POLICY EXCLUSIONS
PLEA DISCUSSIONS
FED: Evidence of withdrawn pleas, offers to plea, actual pleas of nolo contendere, and statements made during plea discussions is inadmissible.
CA: CEC same as Federal Rule. Whether Proposition 8 would make such evidence admissible in a criminal case is unclear.
PUBLIC POLICY EXCLUSIONS
EXPRESSIONS OF SYMPATHY IN CIVIL CASES
No corresponding Federal Rule.
CA:
Under CEC, expressions of sympathy relating to the pain, suffering, or death of an accident victim are inadmissible in civil cases.
However, accompanying statements of fault are admissible.
PUBLIC POLICY EXCLUSIONS
EVIDENCE OF IMMIGRATION STATUS IN CERTAIN CIVIL CASES
No corresponding Federal Rule.
CA: Under CEC, evidence of a person’s immigration status is not admissible or discoverable in civil actions for personal injury or wrongful death.
HOSPITAL QUALITY RECORDS IN CIVIL CASES
No corresponding Federal Rule.
CA: Under CEC, the following hospital quality records are inadmissible in civil cases:
* Records of hospital morbidity or mortality studies (studies that examine complications or deaths).
* Certain proceedings and records of hospital committees and peer review bodies.
VICTIM’S OR WITNESS’S ACT OF PROSTITUTION
No corresponding Federal Rule.
CA: Under CEC, in certain criminal cases, evidence that a crime victim or witness had engaged in prostitution at or around the time of the crime is inadmissible against them in a separate criminal prosecution for prostitution.
The qualifying crimes are: **any serious felony, assault, domestic violence, extortion, human trafficking, sexual battery, and stalking.
