Relevance Flashcards
Evidence of gruesome murder scene is relevant but inadmissible because:
The probative value of the murder scene is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Lady Diana’s driver argues that other driver has full coverage car insurance and therefore drove recklessly because he knew he would be covered. Evidence of the insurance policy is inadmissible because:
Policy reasons. While liability insurance is otherwise relevant in a car accident case, it cannot be used to prove reckless driving.
Iphone user sues Apple for hand lacerations from improperly installed phone screen on the iPhone 3000. User seeks to prove that after the lawsuit was initiated, Apple recalled all iPhone 3000s and provided free repair of the screens. Proof of recall and repair is inadmissible because:
The recall and repair is a subsequent remedial measure. Policy reason: we don’t want the defendant to NOT fix the issue if possible, so we would want them to fix it without worry that it will be used against them in litigation.
Dirty Diana offers Like Mike $40,000 to settle Like Mike’s slander case. Like Mike refuses. He tries to introduce proof of the offer in court. This evidence is inadmissible because:
Policy reasons, settlement offers should not be admitted into court because it could chill efforts to settle cases.
In an assault trial the plaintiff seeks to introduce proof of the defendant’s withdrawn guilty plea in a previous battery case. This is inadmissible because:
Withdrawn guilty pleas cannot be used against the defendant in the pending criminal case or in subsequent civil litigation based on the same facts.
Elmer Fudd was deer hunting and shot a deer within his sights. However, when he went to gather his kill he found Yo Sammity Sam groaning and bleeding on the ground. Elmer immediately rushes Yo Sammity to the hospital and said, “Don’t worry about the bill, I’ve got it covered!” Yo Sammity cannot offer this statement into evidence because:
Policy reasons, we won’t punish good Samaritans for offering to pay medical expenses and thus those offers are inadmissible.
A defendant is being prosecuted in federal court for illegally transporting persons across state lines for immoral purposes. The prosecutor alleges that her route was from New York to Tampa. The court takes judicial notice of the fact that it is impossible to get from New York to Tampa without crossing a state line.
What is the effect of the court’s action?
’s burden of producing evidence on this point. This question involves the effect of taking judicial notice of a fact. Judicial notice allows a party to “prove” a fact by the court’s recognizing that the fact is a matter of common knowledge within the jurisdiction or is able to be quickly determined by resorting to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. [Fed. R. Evid. 20l(b)] Since judicial notice functions are a substitute for more formal evidence (i.e., testimonial evidence), it has the same effect as more formal evidence. If the prosecutor had presented competent testimonial evidence to establish that it is impossible to get from New York to Tampa without crossing a state line, the prosecutor’s burden of producing evidence on that point would have been satisfied. Thus, the prosecutor’s burden of production is likewise satisfied if the point is established through judicial notice. (A) is incorrect because this is a criminal case. (A) would be correct if this were a civil case because, in civil cases, a fact judicially noticed is conclusively established, and thus binding on the jury. However, in criminal cases, a judicially noticed fact is not binding on the jury; the jury is permitted to find facts that have been judicially noticed, but never is required to do so. [Fed. R. Evid. 20l(g)] If a jury were required to find specific facts in a criminal case, even facts that had been judicially noticed, the defendant’s right to trial by jury would be undermined. (B) and (C) are also incorrect. Since this is a criminal case, the burden of establishing the defendant’s guilt always stays with the prosecution. If the interstate nature of the New York-Tampa route were established through more formal evidence, the burden of establishing the defendant’s guilt would stay with the prosecution. The prosecution would not be relieved of this burden if judicial notice, rather than more formal evidence, were used to establish the interstate nature of the route. (These choices were questionable from the outset because they draw a distinction between “burden of persuasion” and “burden of proof,” two concepts that are often treated as interchangeable.)
