Relevance

Question 1

Rule 401 - Relevance

Answer 1

(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

Question 2

Evidence’s probative value

Answer 2

its effect/if it has persuasive impact on the judge or jury

Question 3

Rule 402

Answer 3

Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise: the US constitution, a federal statute, these rules, or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.

Question 4

Historical evolution of the rules - Thayerian View

Answer 4

Thayerian view was that evidence having only the slightest probative force is admissible (Adopted by the FRE)

Question 5

Historical evolution of the rules - Wigomorian View

Answer 5

The wigomorian view called for a legal relevance test so that only evidence with more than a minimum of probative value would be permitted (rejected by FRE)

Question 6

Factors to consider when deciding whether to admit evidence as relevant

Answer 6

Factual investigation,

Discovery,

Legal analysis

Witness preparation, and

The development of case theories and themes (Theory of the Case)

Question 7

Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

Primary and Secondary Purposes of Rule 403

Answer 8

(Primary Purpose) – Integrity

(Secondary Purpose) – Efficiency

Both applying to the fact-finding process

Question 9

Two types of unfair prejudice:

Answer 9

(1) evidence that encourages the jury to make its decision based on emotions rather than facts (gruesome photographs, testimony linking the defendant to hate groups, past crimes by the defendant)
(2) evidence that is introduced for one purpose being used for an improper purpose by the jury (ex. Evidence of prior acts of misconduct under 404(b)).

Question 10

What parties must articulate in an unfair prejudice objection

Answer 10

What the value of the evidence is in proving the proponent’s case and

How the evidence may cause the jury to return a verdict on an improper ground

Question 11

What the judge will consider in an unfair prejudice objection

Answer 11

How central is the evidence to the claim or defense

Weigh the significance of the evidence in the context of all available evidence in the case

Account for any alternative means of proving the fact in question

Question 12

Extrinsic impact of evidence

Answer 12

In this setting “extrinsic” means outside the courtroom

Rules 407-411 tackle interest in extrinsic social policies

Question 13

Four-step template to analyze evidence under Rules 407-411

Answer 13

1. Identify the social policy/value underlying this rule
2. Determine whether the proposed use of the evidence violates the social policy/value
3. Determine if there’s an exception to general rule of exclusion and
4. Apply independent R403 analysis to any apparent exceptions

Question 14

Rule 407 - Subsequent Remedial Measures

Answer 14

When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:

• Negligence
• Culpable conduct
• A defect in a product or its design; or
• A need for a warning or instruction

But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or—if disputed—proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures.

Question 15

Rule 408(a) - Compromise Offers and Negotiations

Answer 15

(a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible – on behalf of any party – either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction:
(1) furnishing, promising, or offering – or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept – a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and
(2) conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim – except when offered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim by a public office in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority.

Question 16

Rule 408(b) - Compromise Offers and Negotiations - Exceptions

Answer 16

(b) Exceptions. The court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.

Question 17

Rule 409 - Offers to Pay Medical and Similar Expenses

Answer 17

Evidence of furnishing, promising to pay, or offering to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses resulting from an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury.

Question 18

Rule 410(a) - Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements - Prohibited Uses

Answer 18

Prohibited Uses. In a civil or criminal case, evidence of the following is not admissible against the defendant who made the plea or participated in the plea discussions:

(1) a guilty plea that was later withdrawn; 
(2) a nolo contendere plea; 
(3) a statement made during a proceeding on either of those pleas under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 or a comparable state procedure; or 
(4) a statement made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority if the discussions did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in a later-withdrawn guilty plea.

Question 19

Rule 410(b) - Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements - Exceptions

Answer 19

Exceptions. The court may admit a statement described in Rule 410(a)(3) or (4):

(1) in any proceeding in which another statement made during the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced, if in fairness the statements ought to be considered together, or 
(2) in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement, if the defendant made the statement under oath, on the record, and with counsel present.

Question 20

Rule 411 - Liability Insurance

Answer 20

Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice or proving agency, ownership, or control.

Question 21

Liability insurance as evidence to show negligence or ability to pay

Answer 21

Inadmissible to Show Negligence or Ability to Pay

Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue of whether she acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. Nor is it admissible to show ability to pay a substantial judgment. [Fed. R. Evid. 411]

Question 22

Instances when liability insurance is admissible

Answer 22

1. To Prove Ownership or Control
   Evidence that the defendant maintained insurance may be admitted for the limited purpose of proving the defendant’s ownership or control when ownership or control is disputed.
2. For Purposes of Impeachment
   Evidence that the defendant is insured may be used for the limited purpose of impeaching a witness.
3. As Part of Admission
   An admission of liability may be so coupled with a reference to insurance coverage that the reference to insurance cannot be severed without lessening its value as an admission of liability.

Question 23

Evidence of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence or culpable conduct

Answer 23

Evidence of repairs or other precautionary measures made following an injury is inadmissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product or its design, or a need for a warning or instruction. [Fed. R. Evid. 407] The purpose of the rule is to encourage people to make such repairs.

Question 24

Instances when evidence of subsequent remedial measures are admissible

Answer 24

1) To Prove Ownership or Control
Evidence of subsequent repairs performed by the defendant may be introduced to prove ownership or control, since a stranger would hardly make repairs.

2) To Rebut Claim that Precaution Was Not Feasible
Evidence of repairs or other precautionary measures made following an accident is admissible to establish the feasibility of precautionary measures when such feasibility is disputed.

3) To Prove Destruction of Evidence
Evidence of subsequent remedial measures may be admitted to prove that the opposing party has destroyed evidence; e.g., repainting a fender to cover up evidence of a collision (spoliation).