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
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)
