Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Evidence > Relevance > Flashcards

Relevance Flashcards

1
Q

Logical relevance? Rule?

A

Evidence that has any tendency to make a material fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

FRE 403

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are the three warning signals for questions involving evidence that may not be logically relevant? If it involves . . .

A

Some other time, event, or person than the one directly involved in the litigation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Relevant evidence can be excluded under 403 if its probative value is SUBSTANTIALLY outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following? (6)

What is not a consideration?

A 
Unfair prejudice
Confusion of the issues
Misleading the jury
Undue delay
Wasting time
Needless presenting cumulative evidence

NOT = unfair surprise.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Are similar occurrences, disparate in either time, even, or parties, are admissible to show causation?

A

Yes, when causation is complicated.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Are a party’s prior accidents or claims admissible?

A

Generally, no.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

When can a party’s prior accidents or claims becomes admissible? (2)

A

To show common plan of scheme or fraud

Where prior claims are relevant to damages to plaintiff.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Other accidents involving the same instrumentality which occurred under similar circumstances are admissible to show . . . (3)

A

Notice

Knowledge

Instrumentality is defective/dangerous

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Are similar occurrences, disparate in either time, even, or parties, are admissible to show intent or state of mind?

A

Yes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Similar occurrences, disparate in either time, even, or parties, are admissible to rebut what defense?

A

Impossibility

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

The sale price of other chattels or parcels of real property is admissible IF the other chattels or parcels . . . (3)

HINT: This is logical relevance, so consider the three warning signs.

A

Fit the same general description

Were sold in the same general time period

Exist in the same geographic area.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

When is habit evidence admissible?

A

To prove that on a particular occasion, the person acted in accordance with their habit.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Is disposition evidence admissible?

A

No

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Is prior act evidence admissible?

A

No

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What two key descriptive words distinguish habit from disposition and prior acts?

A

Specificity

Recurrence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is the recommended threshold of occurances for which habit can be discussed?

A

Three

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Is business routine admissible?

A

Yes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Industrial or trade custom is admissible as . . .

A

Non-conclusive evidence of a standard of care.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What are the three areas of importance under Discretionary Policy-Based Relevance?

A

Liability Insurance

Subsequent remedial acts

Settlements

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

When is liability insurance admissible? (2)

A

To show ownership or control

To impeach by showing interest or bias

20
Q

For what purposes are subsequent remedial measures not admissible? To prove . . .

A

Negligence

Culpable conduct

Product defects

Design defects

Need for a warning or instruction

21
Q

For what purposes are subsequent remedial measures admissible? (4)

Which three require the issue to be in dispute?

A

Impeachment

To prove ownership (if disputed)

To prove control (if disputed)

To prove the feasibility of precautionary measures (if disputed)

22
Q

Settlements are not admissible to prove . . . (3)

A

Fault

Liability

Amount of damage

23
Q

The inadmissibility of settlements includes . . . (5)

A

Actual compromises

Offers to compromise

Offers to plead guilty (criminal)

Withdrawn guilty pleas

Pleas of nolo contendere

24
Q

For settlements to be excluded from evidence, what two things must be true?

A

There must be a claim

The claim must be disputed as to either liability or amount

25
Q

When can an offer to pay medical expenses be admissible?

A

If an admission accompanies a naked offer (non-settlement offer) to pay hospital or medical expenses.

26
Q

HYPO: D says, “Let’s settle. I will admit I was negligent. Let’s agree on the amount of damage.” Admissible? Explain

A

No. Admission of negligence was made as a part of a settlement discussion of the disputed damage issue.

27
Q

HYPO: D says, “It was all my fault. Let me pay your hospital bill.” Admissible?

A

Yes. Admission was made as part of a naked offer to pay the medical bill and that is not a settlement offer.

28
Q

Four questions to ask yourself when dealing with character evidence questions.

PMTT

A

Purpose of offer of character evidence?

Method of proving character?

Type of case (civil vs. criminal)?

What character trait is involved?

29
Q

What are three appropriate purposes/scenarios for character evidence?

Which is only permitted in criminal cases once the door is opened?

A

Character is directly at issue

Character provides circumstantial evidence of a person’s conduct during the event (criminal; door opened)

Impeachment of credibility

30
Q

Three methods of proving character?

A

Specific acts

Opinion

Reputation

31
Q

What sort of trait can be introduced? Which cannot

A

Specific trait which is substantively in issue in the case is OK

General traits are not.

32
Q

When can bad character be used in a criminal case?

A

Once the accused introduces evidence of his good character for the pertinent trait in the form of reputation or opinion.

33
Q

Can the accused introduce character evidence in a criminal trial, as part of a self-defense plea, to show the character of the victim? If no, why? If so, how?

A

Yes, by reputation or opinion.

34
Q

If the character of a victim is attacked in a criminal trial, what may the prosecutor generally do? (2)

A

Show the good character of the victim OR attack the character of the defendant

35
Q

In a criminal sexual misconduct case, is opinion or reputation evidence admissible to prove consent?

A

No

36
Q

In a criminal sexual misconduct case, when are specific instances of sexual behavior of the victim admissible? (3)

A

When offered to prove that a third party perpetrated the crime.

To show prior acts of consensual intercourse between the victim and accused.

If exclusion would violate the constitutional rights of the accused.

37
Q

In a civil sexual misconduct case, evidence of the sexual disposition or behavior or the victim is admissible ONLY if . . .

A

The probative value substantially outweigh the danger of harm to the victim and unfair prejudice to any party.

38
Q

Previous crimes/acts by D are not admissible during P’s case-in-chief in the only purpose is to prove . . .

When is P allowed to introduce such evidence?

A

Criminal character or disposition.

When the misconduct is relevant to prove a material fact other than character or disposition (i.e., some relevant issue other than bad character).

39
Q

What are some examples of issues on which prior misconduct of the accused may be relevant independent of character or disposition (i.e., other crimes or past misconduct may be shown to prove)?

MIMIC + others

A 
Motive
Intent
Mistake (absence of)
Identity 
Common plan or scheme
Modus operandi (another way to prove identity)
Opportunity
Preparation
Knowledge
Lack of accident
40
Q

Is the MIMIC rule for using other crimes/past misconduct subject to 403?

A

Yes

41
Q

When dealing the MIMIC rule for using other crimes/past misconduct, what two questions should you ask yourself?

A

Independently relevant?

403?

42
Q

Does MIMIC apply to criminal cases?

A

Yes, both civil and criminal.

43
Q

How does the rule for prior acts change when the charges involves sexual assault or child molestation?

A

Prosecutor/plaintiff can introduce without the door being opened.

44
Q

In a criminal case, can a prosecution introduce evidence of a prior conviction in his case in chief to suggest that D acted similarly this time around?

A

No. P cannot introduce character evidence if sole purpose is to show criminal disposition — even priors!

45
Q

Crim – In what two forms may the D offer evidence of his good character for the pertinent character trait?

A

Rep or Opinion

46
Q

Crim – Once D has offered evidence of his good character for the pertinent trait, what methods can P use to counter D’s claims on cross?

A

Any, specific acts ok here.

47
Q

Crim – Once D has offered evidence of his good character for the pertinent trait, what methods can P use to counter D’s claims with a new witness?

A

Rep and opinion only

Evidence (14 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions