Relevance

Question 1

Instances Where the Federal Rules Don’t Apply

Answer 1

Except for rules relating to privilege, Fed Rules of Ev don’t apply in:
- court’s determination of a preliminary question of fact relating to admissibility
- grand jury proceedings
- other miscellaneous proceedings, including those involving sentencing, extradition, issuing an arrest or search warrant, preliminary examination in a criminal case, bail, and probation

Question 2

Definition of Relevance

Answer 2

• • evidence = 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

Must be:
- material -> proposition must be “of consequence” in the case (though doesn’t need to be the ultimate issue)
- probative -> ev has “any” tendency to make the proposition more or less likely

• threshold q + low bar to overcome

Question 3

General Rule of Admissibility

Answer 3

• irrelevant ev is always inadmissible

All relevant ev is admissible UNLESS:
- it’s kept out by some specific exclusionary rule of evidence
- court uses its Rule 403 discretion to keep it out

Question 4

Rule 403

Answer 4

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 (danger that the jury will decide the case on an emotional basis)
- confusion of the issues
- misleading the jury (danger that the jury will give undue weight to the evidence)
- undue delay
- waste of time
- needless presentation of cumulative (repetitive) evidence

• Under Fed Rules, unfair surprise is NOT a valid ground upon which to exclude relevant evidence

Question 5

Similar Occurrences

Answer 5

• as a general rule, if ev involves some time, event, or person other than that involved in the present case, it’s inadmissible
  -> rationale: often doesn’t survive the Rule 403 balancing test (relevance weak to begin w/ + probative value substantially outweighed)
• BUT there are some instances where it comes in

Question 6

Similar Occurrences - Examples of Relevant Occurrences

Answer 6

• plaintiff’s accident history with respect to prior false claims or same bodily injury
• similar accidents or injuries caused by same event or condition
• previous similar accidents admissible to prove intent
• sales of similar property
• rebutting claim of impossibility
• causation
• habit and business routine evidence
• industry custom as evidence of standard of care

Question 7

Plaintiff’s Accident History

Answer 7

• generally inadmissible, BUT can be admitted if it’s showing something other than general carelessness
• ev hat pl has made previous similar false claims is usually relevant to prove that the present claim is likely to be false
• ev of prior accidents may be admissible where cause of pl’s damages is at issue
  -> if pl previously injured same part of body, the evidence may be admitted to show pl’s condition is attributable to the prior injury instead of the current accident

Question 8

Similar Accidents or Injuries Caused by Same Event or Condition

Answer 8

• generally, other accidents involving def are inadmissible b/c they merely show def’s general character for carelessness
• BUT ev of prior accidents or injuries caused by same event or condition + occurring under substantially similar circumstances admissible to prove:
  1) the existence of a dangerous condition
  2) that the dangerous condition was the cause of the present injury AND
  3) that def had notice of the dangerous condition

Question 9

Absence of Similar Accidents

Answer 9

• may courts reluctant o admit to show absence of negligence or lack of defect
• BUT ev of absence of complaints is admissible to show def’s lack of knowledge of the danger

Question 10

Previous Similar Acts Admissible to Prove Intent

Answer 10

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

Question 11

Sales of Similar Property

Answer 11

• ev of sales of similar personal or real property around the same time period is admissible to prove the property’s value
• BUT prices quoted in mere offers to purchase generally aren’t admissible

Question 12

Rebutting Claim of Impossibility

Answer 12

• requirement that prior occurrences be similar to the litigated act may be relaxed when used to rebut claim of impossibility
  -> ex: def claims car won’t go above 50 mph can be rebutted w/ ev that it has done so

Question 13

Causation

Answer 13

• complicated issues of causation may be established by ev concerning other times, events, or persons
  ->ex: damage to nearby homes caused by D’s blasting is relevant to prove D’s blasting damaged pl’s home

Question 14

Habit and Routine Business Evidence - Admissibility

Answer 14

• evidence of a person’s habit (or ev of routine practice of an org) is admissible as circumstantial ev that the person or org acted in accordance with the habit on the occassion at issue in the case

Question 15

Habit - Definition

Answer 15

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

2 defining characteristics:
1) frequency of conduct
2) particularity of circumstances

Question 16

Habit vs. Character Ev

Answer 16

• character describes general disposition/propensity wrt general traits
  -> generally NOT admissible to prove how person acted in the case
• words like “always”, “invariably”, instinctively + automatically tend to indicate habit

Question 17

Industry Custom

Answer 17

• ev of how others in same trade or industry have acted in recent past may be used to show appropriate standard of care
• BUT not conclusive on this point (ex: entire industry may be acting negligently