Relevance Flashcards
Relevance: 1. Def? 2. Relevant ev admissible?
- If ev has ANY TENDENCY TO MAKE A MATERIAL FACT MORE OR LESS PROBABLE than w/o such evidence
- All relevant evidence admissible unless
Relevant evidence admissible unless explicit exclusionary rule (e.g., hearsay) or discretionary exclusion when court decides probative value outweighed by “pragmatic considerations” or “balancing factors” – name the 6 factors/considerations
Quality of fact finding:
- Danger of unfair prejudice
- Confusion of the issues
- Misleading the jury
Unuseful
- Undue delay
- Waste of time
- Unduly cumulative
Rule of thumb re similar occurrence evidence
IN GENERAL, if evidence concerns SOME TIME, EVENT OR PERSON OTHER THAN THAT INVOLVED IN THE CASE AT HAND, the evidence is INADMISSIBLE.
Six exceptions that allow admissibility of similar occurrence evidence
- Plaintiff’s accident history (if P’s injury causation is at issue)
- Similar accident caused by same instrumentality or condition
- Intent in issue
- Prove similar property value
- Habit
- Industry custom as standard of care
Character/propenisty evidence about P allowed to prove actions on particular occasion? Gen rule and exception
Generally inadmissible, except if the CAUSE OF P’S INJURY IS AN ISSUE.
Similar accidents caused by same instrumentality or condition: Generally allowed? Exceptions (3 purposes)?
GENERALLY, other accidents involving defendant are inadmissible because they suggest nothing more than defendant’s general character for carelessness.
EXCEPTION: Other accidents involving the same instrumentality or condition may be admitted for 3 potential purposes IF the other accident occurred (1) show existence of dangerous condition; (2) causation of accident; or (3) prior notice to defendant
Intent in issue: what’s admissible?
Prior similar conduct of a person may be admissible to raise an inference of the person’s intent on later occasion (e.g., repeat hiring discrimination)
Habit evidence: When allowed?
Habit of a person (or routine of a business organization) is ADMISSIBLE as circumstantial evidence of how the person (or business) acted on the occasion at issue in the litigation.
Distinguish b/t character evidence (inadmisslbe) and habit evidence (admissible). Def of habit (2 part)?
Character evidence refers to a person’s general disposition or propensity.
DEFINITION: Habit is a repetitive response to a particular set of circumstances -1. FREQUENCY of conduct; and 2. PARTICULARITY of conduct
NY additional req to admit habit evidence? Allowed for car accidents?
Person must be in complete control of circumstances (e.g., dentist can show they always apply anaesthesia). Cannot be used for car accidents.
Evidence for admission of industrial custom as standard of care?
Evidence as to how others in the same trade or industry have acted in the recent past may be admitted as some evidence as to how a party in the instant litigation should have acted, i.e., as evidence of the APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF CARE.
Four policy-based exclusions for relevant evidence?
- Liability insurance
- Subsequent remedial measures (post-accident repairs, design change, policy change)
- Settlements of Disputed Civil Claims
- Offer to pay hospital or medical expenses
Liability insurance excluded generally, EXCEPT
Generally inadmissible, but It may be admitted for some other relevant purpose, e.g., proof of ownership of insured item if ownership disputed by D or to impeach witness credibility
General rule re admissibility of Subsequent Remedial Measures (Post-accident repairs, design changes, policy changes) and exception
INADMISSIBLE for the purpose of proving NEGLIGENCE,
CULPABLE CONDUCT, PRODUCT DEFECT, OR NEED FOR WARNING.
EXCEPTION: Admissible for some other relevant purpose, such as proof of OWNERSHIP / CONTROL or FEASIBILITY OF SAFER CONDITION, IF EITHER IS DISPUTED BY D.
NY difference re admissibility of Subsequent Remedial Measures?
In a products liability action against a manufacturer based on STRICT LIABILITY for a manufacturing defect, the manufacturer’s post-accident manufacturing changes or design changes are admissible to suggest the existence of a defect in the product at the time of the accident.
Three inadmissible pieces of ev w/r/t Settlements of Disputed Civil Claims (only applies AFTER CLAIM is asserted and there’s a dispute re liability or damages)
- settlement inadmissible
- offer to settle
- statements of fact made in settlement discussions
==> these 3 can’t be used for purp of A. showing liability, or B. impeaching witnesses testimony as prior inconsistent statement
Exceptions where Settlements of Disputed Civil Claims are admissible
- Can be used to impeach witness based on bias of witness
- fact statements from negotiating regulatory settlement w/ govt is admissible in later crim case (e.g., Enron) (narrow)
Evidence of plea bargaining of the following are inadmissible (4 examples and ONE EXCEPTION)
Inadmissible 1. Offer to plead guilty
2. Withdrawn guilty plea
3. Plea of nolo contendere (“no contest”)
4. Statements of fact made during any of the above plea discussions
EXCEPTION for admissible plea: a plea of GUILTY (not withdrawn) is ADMISSIBLE against the defendant in subsequent litigation under the rule of party admissions. E.g., arsonist burns down his house, guilty plea, then seeks insurance payment.
Offer to pay hospital or medical expenses: general rule, exception?
Generally inadmissible, but does not exclude statements of fact made in connection with offer to pay hospital or medical expense.
Potential purposes for admissibility of character evidence
(1) Person’s character is an ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN THE CASE (NEVER FOR CRIM, rare for civil).
(2) Character evidence to prove CONDUCT IN CONFORMITY WITH CHARACTER at the time of the litigated event, a/k/a character as circumstantial evidence of conduct on a particular occasion.
(3) Witness’s bad character for truthfulness to IMPEACH CREDIBILITY.
D’s character ev in crim cases: 1. admissible during P’s case in chief? 2. Admissible during defense? (What type in NY inadmissible during D’s case?) 3. Rebuttal (3 types incl NY specific)?
- P can’t introduce. 2. D can introduce REPUTATION & OPINION allowed; SPECIFIC ACTS NOT allowed (NY won’t allow OPINION)
- Rebuttal by P: allow (A) cross-examination to impeach witness with specific acts; (B) introduce P’s own reputation witness; and (C) NY P can provide D has been convicted of crime reflecting negatively on character trait at issue.
- In self-defense case, is victim’s character evidence allowed? If so, how? How can P respond? 2. NY is very different. How?
- Carveout for D’s knowledge of victim’s facts/traits?
- Federally, reputation and opinion admitted w/r/t victim’s character. P can then introduce counter-evidence re D or victim.
- NY won’t allow victim character evidence.
- D’s knowledge of victim is admissible to prove D’s state of mind (scared, had to strike back)
Sexual misconduct (not rape): victim’s character admissible? Exceptions (3)?
No opinion, reputation, or specific acts of victim. Exceptions: 1. Admissible for specific act if D trying to show someone else did it;
- prior sex acts to show consent
- if excluding evidence would violate D’s due process
Character evidence in civil case is generally inadmissible. 1. Can D bring in character evidence in civil case? 2. What about where case’s underlying conduct is criminal (e.g. OJ civil case). 3. What about where character is ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF A CLAIM OR DEFENSE? (3 Examples)
1 & 2. No character evidence by D for civil case.
3. Allowed where: (A) tort NEGLIGENT HIRING OR ENTRUSTMENT - employer should’ve known employee had bad character; (B) Defamation of character; (C) Child custody dispute - parents’ character matters
