Relevance Flashcards
General Admissibility of Evidence – FRE 402
Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise: constitution, fed. statute, these rules, or other rules prescribed by SCOTUS.
Irrelevant evidence I snot admissible.
Test for Relevant evidence – FRE 401
Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.
Relevance = Probative + Material
Probative: Does it prove anything? VERY LOW BAR.
NOT if proves a fact. If it has ANY TENDENCY to make the fact more or less probable. Does it move the needle AT ALL?
Material: Does that matter to this particular case?
When is a fact of consequence?
Helps establish elements of a claim
Helps establish affirmative defense or negate an element from the plaintiff
Helps establish witness credibility (Witness credibility is ALWAYS relevant.)
BUZZ WORDS: “probative & material”
Relevance: Must make when analyzing
Chain of inference demonstrating/connecting the evidence to its proactiveness and to it’s materiality.
*The chain of inferences doesn’t have to be the ONLY possible inference. Just ONE.
Ex: Defendant said “Hook me up” to the polygraph with no hesitation.
Therefore, D was not afraid of the polygraph.
Therefore, D likely believed himself to be innocent
Therefore, D is more likely to be innocent
Conditional Relevance — FRE 104(b)
Evidence is only relevant IF a certain fact is established.
— Standard of proof to support a finding that the fact does exist:
— Huddleston Standard
— “A reasonable juror COULD find to a preponderance of the evidence that the fact is true.”
— VERY VERY LOW BAR
Excluding Relevant Evidence (Last Hurdle) — FRE 403
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, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
- The unfair prejudice must SUBSTANTIALLY outweigh the probative value for a judge to be permitted to exclude it. insert pic of Redmon with hands high and low
- If it’s at all close = it’s coming in
Demonstrative Evidence & 403
- It’s not usually going to be an effective argument to say that something is “too persuasive”
- A better objection is to pinpoint some ways where the animation is misleading or doesn’t represent what the fact witness has said.
Evidence of Flight & 403
Flight evidence is probative as circumstantial evidence of guilt depends on the degree of confidence in which the four inferences can be drawn.
Chain/Elements required to get flight evidence in front of a jury under 403:
- The conduct was intentional flight from the law
- Which shows consciousness of guilt
- Of THIS offense in particular
- Which shows actual guilt
Statistical Evidence & 403
People v. Collins = Sometimes statistical evidence is perfectly fair, but it is only fair if the assumptions they are being relied on are found in the evidence.
Stipulations: 403 + 102
Rule 403 read in light of Rule 102 contemplates a flexible scheme of discretionary judgments by trial courts designed to minimize the evidentiary costs of protecting parties from unfair prejudice. Conditioning the exclusion of evidence upon the entry of a stipulation is a practical solution to that problem.
Stipulations & 403: Old Chief
D on trial for assault
P needs to prove D’s felon status
P offers conviction of prior assault as evidence
D wants to stipulate to felon status
BIG TAKEAWAY: When confronted with this situation:
Prosecution needs to prove a thing a Defendant is offering to stipulate that particular fact
When doing a 403 balancing analysis, the stipulation REDUCES the probative value of the evidence (was to help prove a certain fact… well the D will admit to it!!). The fact is no longer contested, so the probative value is discounted a ton. If it is prejudicial, now the chances of it overcoming 403 is even lower.
This is an exception to the normal rule: Prosecution can try its case as it sees fit.
- Translation: Offer to stipulate results in discounted probative value of that evidence.
Subsequent Remedial Measures — FRE 407
Bars: subsequent remedial measures
- To prove: negligence, culpable conduct, product defect, need for warning
But may be admitted: for another purpose
- Such as: impeachment or if disputed ownership, control, or feasibility
This rule only bars remedial measures AFTER the injury.
What is a subsequent remedial measure?
- Anything that you do to make something better or safer AFTER the harm has occurred.
- Measures that would have made an earlier injury less likely.
Subsequent remedial measures: what about third party repairs?
3rd party repairs usually NOT excluded by 407 because the policy behind the rule is not implicated.
Example:
- Officer accidentally grabs gun instead of taser
- Police department changes taser policy after shooting
- Police department is NOT a party, so officer can show the change in policy to try to exculpate himself.
Subsequent remedial measures: safety
Safety is NOT the same as feasibility. Could just be not recommended… not impossible. (safety is flirting with negligence though)
Compromises — FRE 408
Summary & Two requirements to trigger
• Bars: Settlement offers and acceptances & statements/conduct during negotiations (BUZZ = “cone of silence”)
• To Prove: validity of claim or amount
• But May Be Admitted: for another purpose
• Such As: proving witness bias/prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving obstruction of criminal.
Two Requirements to trigger 408:
1. Must be a dispute
- Doesn’t have to be a lawsuit on file…. Just need conduct, words, etc. to show that both parties were on notice this thing is going to reach litigation if nothing happens.
2. Must be an offer to compromise
Medical Expenses — FRE 409
Bars: offer or payment of medical costs
To Prove: Liability
- Reality is there is no other real purpose (besides liability) to get this in. There’s really no way this is getting in.
Rule 409 will bar of the “humane impulse[]” to pay the other’s medical bills—but his unguarded impulse to apologize and admit fault will come in against him. ACN to FRE 409 (RB 75).
Lost wages are not covered by 409. ( i think)
Liability Insurance — FRE 411
Summary & Analysis
TLDR
Bars: liability insurance or lack of it
To Prove: negligence or wrongful action
But May Be Admitted: for another purpose
Such As: proving witness bias or agency, ownership, or control
Analysis:
- Is this the kind of evidence covered by 411?
- Is it being offered for a prohibited purpose?
- If not, for what legitimate purpose is it being offered?
- Does the asserted purpose make sense?
When is the law more indulgent about allowing liability insurance in?
In criminal cases when the D wants to offer the evidence in her own defense.
Pleas — FRE 410
Bars: (against D only)
1. Guilty plea later withdrawn
2. Nolo contendere plea
3. Statements during plea proceedings
4. Statements in plea talks with prosecutor
But May Be Admitted:
FAIRNESS: To complete partial account of plea discussions or
- Another statement was made during the same plea hearing or negotiation that has already been introduced and the statements, in fairness, should be heard together.
PERJURY: In a perjury prosecution if statement under oath, on record, and in counsel’s presence.
- This is TECHNICALLY a different case. Perjury trial is different than the case at bar…
Special notes on Pleas — 410
DIFF THAN OTHER SPECIAL RULES:
- Not allowed for ANY purpose EXCEPT
- (Cannot eat spaghetti anywhere EXCEPT kitchen0
Against Current Defendant ONLY
- 410 does NOT bar plea evidence against the State
- US v. Biaggi - evidence rejecting plea deal of IMMUNITY to show “innocent state of mind”
Does NOT bar separate defendants from using plea hearing testimony to help themselves.
- Co-conspirator can offer other guy’s retracted guilty pleas in their own separate trial (at least 410 doesn’t bar it
