RELEVANCE Flashcards
PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS
1) Civil or Criminal Case?
2) Which Party is Offering the Evidence?
3) What Particular Piece of Evidence is being Offered?
a. Real - Physical
b. Statement
c. Diagram
d. Document
e. Circumstantial
4) For what purpose is the piece of evidence being offered? (i.e. What is the evidence being offered to prove?)
RELEVANCE
(1) Logical Relevance
(2) Legal Relevance (Discretionary Exclusion FRE 403)
(3) Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Public Policy Grounds
(4) Similar Occurrences
(5) Habit
Logical Relevance
Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.
Evidence is relevant if it tends to make the existence of any fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Relevancy is a yes or no question.
Legal Relevance
A court may exclude logically relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by (1) the danger of unfair prejudice, (2) confusion of issues, (3) misleading the jury, (4) undue delay, or (5) waste of time. Probative value is a matter of degree
This often arrises with evidence that is (1) emotionally disturbing, (2) repetitive or disturbing, (3) admissible for one purpose but inadmissible for another (court excludes to avoid risk of jury using evidence for the improper purpose)
Note: Unfair surprise to a party or witness is NOT a valid ground for excluding evidence
EXCLUSION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE ON PUBLIC POLICY GROUNDS
1) Liability Insurance
2) Subsequent Remedial Measures or Repairs
3) Settlements, Offers to Settle, & Plea Bargaining
4) Payment or Offers to Pay Medical Expenses
Liability Insurance
Evidence of liability insurance is NOT admissible to prove fault (negligence) or a party’s ability to pay damages. Evidence of insurance IS admissible to prove anything else (e.g. ownership, control, bias, etc.)
Subsequent Remedial Measures or Repairs
Evidence of repairs or other remedial measures taken after an injury is INADMISSIBLE to prove fault (negligence), defect, or inadequate warning. Remedial measures evidence is ADMISSIBLE to rebut a defense that there was not feasible precaution.
Settlements, Offers to Settle, & Plea Bargaining
Civl Cases: In civil cases, compromises, offers to settle or related statements are INADMISSIBLE to prove liability or fault. This does not include statements made before the claim or threat of litigation was asserted
Criminal Cases: In criminal cases, pleas offers to plea, an related statements are INADMISSIBLE to prove guilt. This includes not just pleas of guilty but also nolo.
Payment or Offers to Pay Medical Expenses
Payment or offers to pay medical expenses are INADMISSIBLE when offered to prove liability for injuries. Related statements are ADMISSIBLE (distinguish this from settlement offers).
Any offer to pay medical expenses in exchange for releasing liability is INADMISSIBLE, it is considered a settlement offer, not an offer to pay medical expenses
E.g. “If you will sign a release, I will pay your hospital bill. I shouldn’t have dropped that banana peel on the stairs.”
Similar Occurrences
Evidence of similar events occurring outside the present litigation is usually INADMISSIBLE, but can be relevant if used for non-propensity purposes. Similar occurrences may be admissible to prove:
(1) Causation
(2) Prior Accidents Demonstrating: (a) A pattern of fraudulent claims, or (b) Pre-existing conditions
(3) Intent or Absence of Mistake
(4) To rebut a defense of impossibility
* Any time D says something is impossible opens door to rebut defense*
(5) Value (e.g. similar transactions can establish value)
(6) Industry Custom (to prove standard of care in negligence case)
Habit
A person’s habit may be relevant and admissible to show that the person acted in conformity with that habit on a given occasion. The conduct must be highly specific and frequently repeated (i.e. a person’s regular response to a specific set of circumstances)
Note: Look for regular, instinctive, habitual conduct
E.g. Evidence that a person habitually goes down a particular stairwell two steps at a time could be admissible as circumstantial evidence that she did so at the time in question
