Relevance

Question 1

Rule 401: Evidence is Relevant when

Answer 1

It has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
○ The fact is of consequence in determining the action

(it is logical and material)

Question 2

Logical Relevancy

Answer 2

It has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence

Just a brick in the wall

Does not have to be critical evidence

Question 3

Material Relevancy

Answer 3

The fact is of consequence in determining the action

-Must look at cause of action elements and the evidence bringing forth

-Example: strict products but tries to bring evidence on negligence is not material (may seem logical but two different legal theories)

-Look to law and elements to see if it is material

Question 4

Rule 402 excluding relevant evidence

Answer 4

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following:
Unfair prejudice (jury will make improper inferences)

Confusing the issues

Misleading the jury

Undue Delay

Wasting time

Needlessly presenting cumulative evidence

If bench trial, 403 does not apply **

Question 5

Rule 402 General Admissibility

Answer 5

Relevant Evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:

US Constitution (example: 4th amendment search and seizure unreasonable)

Federal statute

These rules

Other rules by Supreme Court

Irrelevant evidence is not admissible

Question 6

Conducting Balancing Test in making 403 determination:

Answer 6

Judge must determine if evidence is relevant (materiality and logical relevancy) under rule 401 (which has a low bar)

If so, presumptively admissible under rule 402

Judge will estimate the strength of its probative value (how much will it sway the jury)

Judge determines the strength of the counterweighs under rule 403

If probative value (tendency to prov e a fact) outweighs counterweights, evidence is admissible (and vice versa)

Aka: Danger of prejudice substantially outweighs probative value

Question 7

Carter v. Hewitt (403)

Answer 7

Rule of Law

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to a party.

Facts

Reginald Carter (plaintiff) was an inmate at a state prison. Carter filed suit against various prison officials (defendants), alleging that he had been severely beaten by guards at the prison. The defendants presented a letter written by Carter to another inmate. The letter stated, “This is a set up.” The letter also encouraged the other inmate to file complaints against prison officials to establish a false pattern of “barbaric brutal” harassment.

Issue

Is relevant evidence admissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to a party?

Holding and Reasoning (Garth, J.)

In this case, the letter from Carter is not inadmissible under FRE 403. The letter is relevant, because it can be construed as Carter advocating the filing of false brutality claims, which supports the inference that Carter’s claim in this case is false. The letter is certainly prejudicial to Carter’s case. However, the letter is not unfairly prejudicial under FRE 403.

Question 8

Old Chief v. United States (Allow the stipulation if the prejudicial effect with substantially outweight the probative value)

Answer 8

Rule of Law

Evidence is not admissible if its unfairly prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.

Facts

Old Chief (defendant) was charged with violation of a federal statute making it illegal for a convicted felon to carry a firearm. Old Chief had previously been convicted of assault causing serious bodily injury, a felony. He sought to stipulate to the evidence of his prior conviction and have the court so instruct the jury. In doing so, he sought to prevent the prosecution from proffering any other evidence about his prior conviction on account of its unnecessary prejudicial effect against him in the eyes of the jury. The district court denied Old Chief’s offer to stipulate and admitted the full record of his prior conviction. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue

Is the full record of a defendant’s prior conviction admissible in a trial for violation of a statute that requires a felony conviction as one of its elements if the defendant offers to stipulate to the fact that he has previously been convicted of a felony?

Holding and Reasoning (Souter, J.)

No. Evidence is not admissible if its unfair prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value. Although the prosecution is generally able to prove its case the way it sees fit, this is not the case where proffered evidence has the tendency to taint the juror’s minds so that they reach a verdict on an improper basis. In this case, admission of the full record was error by the trial court because the full record had very limited probative value, if any, once Old Chief stipulated to the fact that he was a convicted felon. On the other hand, admission of the full record of an assault conviction could paint Old Chief as a violent man and a lifelong felon in the eyes of the jury, neither of which would be a proper basis upon which to render a decision. As a result, the unfair prejudice of the full record of Old Chief’s prior conviction outweighs its very limited probative value and thus is not admissible.

Question 9

FRE 105 limiting instruction

Answer 9

If the court admits evidence that is admissible against a party or for a purpose- but not against another party or for another purpose- the court, on timely request, must restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct jury accordingly.

Question 10

Five limits based on policy that if applicable will make relevant evidence inadmissible

Answer 10

●FRE 407: Subsequent Remedial Measures
● FRE 408: Settlement Matters
● FRE 409: Offers to Pay Medical Expenses
● FRE 410: Plea Bargain Agreements in Criminal cases
● FRE 411: Liability Insurance

Question 11

Subsequent Remedial Measures

Answer 11

Subsequent remedial measure: action take after harm or injury, attempts to rectify situation

Example: slip and fall (negligence case), owner decided to implement new rule right after floors be checked and clean every 30 minutes

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 or its design; or
• a need for a warning or instruction.

But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as :

1. impeachment or—if disputed—
2. proving ownership, control

3.feasibility of precautionary measures. (it was not possible or it was to make safer)

Question 12

Anderson v. Malloy (feasibility exception)

Answer 12

While Linda Anderson and her husband(plaintiff) were staying at a motel owned and operated by Malloy, Zes, and Gibson(defendants), a random man forcibly entered her room and raped her.

Anderson and her husband brought suit against the defendants for negligence, breach of express warranty to provide safe lodging, and fraudulent misrepresentation of the security of the motel.

At trial, district court made four evidentiary rulings excluding portions of the Anderson’s evidence that after the crime happened, the motel installed safety chains and peepholes on the doors

Was admissible here

Question 13

Harrison v. Sears (impeachment exception)

Answer 13

Rule of Law

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 407, evidence of subsequent remedial measures is admissible if offered solely for impeachment purposes.

Facts

Benjamin Harrison (plaintiff) was using a carpentry jointer sold by Sears, Roebuck and Company (Sears) (defendant) when his fingers were injured, resulting in partial amputation. Harrison and Rosalind brought a personal-injury suit against Sears, alleging negligence and breach of warranty.

Issue

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 407, is evidence of subsequent remedial measures admissible if offered solely for impeachment purposes of a witness?

Holding and Reasoning (Brody, J.)

Yes. FRE 407 prohibits the use of evidence of subsequent remedial measures to prove certain claims, including negligence. Under an exception to FRE 407, evidence of subsequent remedial measures is admissible if the evidence is offered exclusively for impeachment purposes. However, to invoke this exception, there must be a significant nexus between the statement being impeached and the subsequent remedial measure. The impeachment exception to FRE 407 may not be used to impermissibly prove negligence using a subsequent remedial measure. To guard against this possibility, courts must employ an analysis under FRE 403 to determine whether the probative value of the impeachment evidence is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to one of the parties. (evidence not admissible)

Question 14

Rule 408: Offers and Negotiations (settlement matters)

Answer 14

a) Evidence of:
(1) A settlement offer or agreement, or
(2) What was said or done during settlement negotiations is NOT admissible to prove that the claim is
VALID or INVALID or worth a certain AMOUNT, or to impeach a witness by prior inconsistent
statement, regardless of who offers it

(b) Exceptions.
The court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as -proving a witness’ bias or
prejudice,
-negating a contention of undue delay, or
- proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or
prosecution.

There MUST be a CLAIM for this rule to apply!

Does not matter WHO is having this settlement talk

Question 15

Pierce v. FR Tripler (settlements)

Answer 15

Rule of Law

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 408, evidence of a settlement offer is inadmissible to prove liability or the amount of a claim, regardless of which party seeks to introduce the evidence.

Facts

Pierce got laid off and gave another job to a younger person and sued for age discrimination. Had meeting with the company and they offered him another job but he denied it in a meeting. Defendants said he did not mitigate damages. Tripler said this job offer evidence was admissible because they made the offer.

Issue

Is evidence of a settlement offer inadmissible to prove liability or the amount of a claim?

Holding and Reasoning (Meskill, J.)

Yes. Under FRE 408, evidence of a settlement offer is inadmissible to prove liability or the amount of a claim, regardless of which party seeks to introduce the evidence. Thus, this evidence is inadmissible even when the party seeking to introduce the settlement offer is the party who made the settlement offer.

Question 16

John Mcshain v. Cessna (witness bias exception settlements)

Answer 16

Rule of Law

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 408, evidence of a settlement offer is admissible to prove a witness’s bias or prejudice.

Facts

John McShain, Inc. (McShain) (plaintiff) purchased a plane that was manufactured by Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) (defendant). The plane had mechanical issues with its landing gear. McShain hired Butler Aviation-Friendship, Inc. (Butler) (defendant) to repair the plane. However, the landing gear continued to fail after the repairs. McShain brought a defective-design suit against Cessna, and Butler was joined as a third-party defendant. Before filing suit, McShain had signed a release agreement releasing Butler from liability in exchange for $10 and the use of Ralph Harmon as an expert consultant. Harmon was an employee of Butler’s sister corporation. At trial, Harmon testified on behalf of McShain. Cessna then introduced the release agreement into evidence, over McShain’s objection. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Cessna. McShain moved for a new trial, and the trial court denied the motion. McShain appealed.

Issue

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 408, is evidence of a settlement offer admissible to prove a witness’s bias or prejudice?

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

Bias here is the person testifying is incentivized because their employer was released from liability (vested interest in outcome)

Question 17

Rule 409: Offers to Pay Medical and Similar Expenses

Answer 17

Evidence of furnishing, promising to pay, or offering to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses resulting from an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury.

-If there is a two sentence statement with the first part not relating to medical expenses, statement are partially admissible, only the part which does not mention the expenses are allowed

-“i feel bad here is 100$, this is not this exception but an admission by party opponent

Question 18

Rule 410 Pleas

Answer 18

(a) Prohibited Users. In a civil or criminal case, evidence of the following is not admissible against the
defendant who made the plea or participated in the plea discussions:
(1) A guilty plea that was later withdrawn
(2) A nolo contendere plea;
(3) A statement made during a proceeding on either of those please under FRCM 11 or
comparable state procedure, or
(4) A statement made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority if
the discussions did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in a later withdrawn guilty plea.
This rule is very limited - only excludes certain things that are against the Δ.

exceptions:
(1) in any proceeding in which another statement made during the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced, if in fairness the statements ought to be considered together; or
(2) in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement, if the defendant made the statement under oath, on the record, and with counsel present.

If defendant brings in the evidence saying prosecution offered great deal, prosecution can bring in evidence after he brings it up

Question 19

United States v. Mezzanatto

Answer 19

Rule of Law

A defendant may waive the Federal Rules’ prohibition on introducing statements made during plea bargaining at trial.

Facts

Mezzanatto (defendant) was arrested on drug charges after selling methamphetamine to an undercover cop. Mezzanatto and his attorney met with the prosecutor to discuss cooperating with the authorities. The prosecutor told Mezzanatto that he had to agree that any statements he made during the discussion could be used to impeach any inconsistent statements he might make at trial. Mezzanatto talked with his attorney and then agreed to this condition. During discussions, Mezzanatto admitted knowing that the package he sold to the undercover cop had drugs in it. He also admitted knowing about a meth lab at the home of a man named Shuster. Later, at trial, Mezzanatto denied knowing that the package contained drugs and denied knowing about Shuster’s meth lab. On cross examination, over the objection of Mezzanatto’s attorney, the prosecutor asked Mezzanatto about the prior inconsistent statements he made at their earlier meeting. Mezzanatto was found guilty. The appellate court reversed his conviction and held that Mezzanatto’s agreement to allow statements made during plea bargaining to be used for impeachment at trial was unenforceable. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(6) and Federal Rule of Evidence 410 (the plea bargaining rules) exclude statements made during plea bargaining from being used as evidence at trial. The appellate court held that these rules’ exclusionary provisions cannot be waived. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue

May a defendant validly waive the Federal Rules’ prohibition on introducing at trial statements made during plea bargaining?

Holding and Reasoning (Thomas, J.)

Yes. A defendant’s waiver of the plea bargaining rules’ exclusionary protection is enforceable unless the defendant can prove he agreed to the waiver involuntarily or unknowingly. Instead, it is presumed that a defendant may voluntarily waive statutory rights unless Congress shows that it expressly intends to prohibit waiver. The presumption of waivability is especially strong when it comes to evidentiary rules. Thus, the defendant has the burden of rebutting the presumption that the plea bargaining rules’ exclusionary protection may be voluntarily waived. First, Mezzanatto argues that the plea bargaining rules cannot be waived because they are fundamental to fair procedure. This is incorrect because these agreements that allow for impeachment will make the jury aware of inconsistent statements which will lead to more accurate verdicts. Second, Mezzanatto argues allowing waiver will cut against the plea bargaining rules’ goal of encouraging settlement. This is not persuasive because without waiver agreements, prosecutors would be much less willing to enter plea bargaining agreements with defendants. Finally, Mezzanatto argues that waivers like Mezzanatto’s should not be enforced because they encourage prosecutorial misconduct. The possibility that prosecutorial misconduct may occur does not justify imposing a rule that all waivers of the plea statement rules’ exclusionary protection are per se invalid. Instead, each waiver agreement should be examined to ensure that it has been entered into knowingly and voluntarily. Mezzanatto’s waiver was agreed to knowingly and voluntarily. Thus, it is enforceable. The appellate court’s judgment is reversed.

Question 20

FRE 411 Liability Insurance

Answer 20

FRE 411: Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove
whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully
BUT the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’ bias or
prejudice or proving agency, ownership, or control.

Question 21

Test Large Overview

Answer 21

Is it Relevant? FRE 401
● Is it excluded? FRE 402
○ Policy Reasons - FRE407-411?
● Does it fail the FRE 403 Balancing Test?

Question 22

Plaintiff, in a slip and fall case arising from a fall in a grocery store parking lot, seeks to introduce
evidence that the defendant, Kroger, has repaved the parking lot after he fell. Kroger has argued that the
parking lot is leased by a different company, and therefore Kroger is not responsible for the conditions
there. Is the evidence of the repaving admissible?

Answer 22

A. Yes. The evidence is relevant and admissible under an exception to 407

Question 23

Carrie West was driving south on High Street. As she was approaching the light at 24th and High, John
Maggs, who was driving in the car next to Carrie, observed Carrie talking on her cell phone, drinking
coffee, and looking down at her iPad. Two minutes later, at 12th and High, Carrie turned right on green,
accidentally striking Lucy Smith on her bike.

Answer 23

A. Yes, because Carrie’s actions while driving at 24th and High tend to prove, however slightly, that
Carrie was not paying close attention to her driving two minutes later

Question 24

In a murder prosecution, the prosecution offered into evidence numerous photos of the decedent lying in
a puddle of her own blood, of the bruises and marks on her body, and other aspects of the death scene.
The defense objected to the photos arguing that the jury would be prejudiced by seeing them. Will the
trial court exclude the photos?

Answer 24

No, unless the prejudicial effect substantially outweighs the probative value

Question 25

While participating in a salsa dancing class, Professor Steiner bumped into Professor Corn, knocking him
down and causing him to injure his ankle. After the fall, Steiner said to Corn “I’m so sorry, I’m such a
clumsy dancer, I definitely need more practice so that I don’t hurt anyone else. Please allow me to
reimburse you for any hospital bills you end up paying out-of-pocket.” Corn, who has never appreciated
Steiner’s dance moves, decides to sue. Corn seeks to introduce Steiner’s statement at trial. Steiner
objects, arguing it is inadmissible. How should the trial judge rule?

Answer 25

Partially admissible. The first sentence of his statement is admissible and the second sentence is
not.

Question 26

Defendant in a criminal trial wants to introduce evidence that during plea negotiations with the
prosecutor, he repeatedly asserted his innocence despite extremely favorable plea terms being offered
by the state. Prosecutor objects that the evidence is inadmissible. Which of the following is the best
answer as to admissibility?

Answer 26

The statements are admissible.

Question 27

Plaintiff was hit by a truck that she claims is owned by Defendant trucking company. Defendant asserts
that it does not own the truck, the truck is actually owned by a separate legal entity, therefore defendant
cannot be liable for the accident. To rebut this claim, plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence that the
defendant has obtained liability insurance on the truck that caused the accident. Defendant objects to
the evidence as inadmissible. What result?

Answer 27

The evidence is admissible

Question 28

A plaintiff brought a personal injury action against a defendant, the owner of a small fishing resort, for injuries he suffered
when a dockside chair he was sitting on collapsed. At trial, the plaintiff testified that he had reported to the defendant the
previous day that one of the chairs had a loose leg, whereupon the defendant tightened the screws holding the leg to the
chair body, but that the next day the repaired leg of the chair collapsed while the plaintiff was fishing from it, injuring him.
The plaintiff now wishes to offer evidence showing that the defendant had attached a new chair leg after the accident.
Should the defendant’s objection to that evidence be sustained?

Answer 28

D. Yes, for public policy reasons.