Relevance Flashcards
Relevance in General
Evidence is only admissible if it is relevant. This means the evidence makes the proposition more or less likely and is of consequence to the case. Relevancy is based on the case at hand and the stage it is offered.
Direct Evidence
Stands on its own
Relevance - Circumstantial Evidence
Circumstantial evidence relies on inferences and is a two-step process whereas the direct evidence stands on its own with no inferences to be drawn, neither are “better”
- Examples of circumstantial evidence: murder case (piece together a crime scene)
Relevance - “Of Consequence”
Facts relate to substantive law and are framed by the pleadings. These include the elements of a charge, elements of a claim or COA, and elements of a defense.
Relevance - “More or Less Likely”
Facts that are determined by common sense and logic.
- Knapp v State: The death of the old-man was relevant to the state of mind D had since he was claiming self-defense.
- CA: The evidence must be “disputed fact” in order to be relevant but the application is the same
Unfair Prejudice
Relevant evidence can be inadmissible if the prejudice to the D substantially outweighs its probative value. (FRE 403)
Unfair Prejudice - Probative Value
Consider how important the evidence is to the case, the strength of the evidence, alternatives, whether or not the point is in dispute, limiting instructions
Unfair Prejudice - Prejudice
The evidence’s prejudicial value must be substantial since the plaintiff is allowed to prove relevant
Unfair Prejudice - Prior Conviction of Similar Offense (Old Chief v. US)
The plaintiff argued that they should be able to prove their case in any manner so long as the evidence presented is relevant to the case. The court agreed and said only when extremely prejudicial will relevant evidence be excluded.
Character Evidence - Rule
Evidence of a person’s character is not admissible in a civil or criminal trial to prove that the person acted in conformity with their character on a specific occasion, character is only “in issue” in civil cases (negligent entrustment, defamation when the defense is truth, child custody litigation) and in criminal case. There are several exceptions to the inadmissibility.
When is character “in issue”?
Negligent entrustment, Cleghorn v. NY case where the train company hired a man they knew had a drinking issue. Evidence of his drinking issue was of his character but admissible because his character was in issue to determine the negligent entrustment.
Character - How to Prove
- Specific instances
- Character witness – opinion or reputation (lay foundation)
To lay foundation: “I am a member of the community that he has a bad reputation in” etc.
Character - Five exceptions for criminal cases
(1) D can offer “good character” as substantive evidence of innocence, the plaintiff can then rebut the D’s character witness using their own
(2) D claims self-defense and offers the victim’s character of violence, plaintiff can then rebut the D’s offer with the victim’s peacefulness, or plaintiff can offer D’s character of violence
(3) In homicide cases victim initiated the attack the prosecutor can offer character evidence about victim’s peacefulness. IN FRE ONLY NOT CA.
(4) Impeachment of credibility
(5) Sex offender cases
Habit Evidence
Evidence of a particular habit is admissible to prove that the D acted in conformity in a particular instance. Habits are very specific and repetitive. They can be an organizations routine practice.
Habit Evidence - Halloran v. Virginia Chemical
D argued that the plaintiff routinely did not follow the instructions provided on the can to troubleshoot. Instead, the plaintiff took shortcuts that ultimately led to this accident at suit. This habit was admissible evidence of the plaintiff’s habit since it was specific and repetitive practices.
