Relevance & Admissibility Issues Flashcards
Rule 401
Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than would be the case without the evidence.
Materiality
The proposed evidence must be “of consequence” in determining the action.
Probativeness
Any tendency to make the proposition more or less likely. Just needs to shift the probability burden the smallest degree.
Admissability of Evidence
Irrelevant evidence is always inadmissable, without exception.
Relevant evidence is generally admissable unless it falls under a specific exclusionary rule or the court uses its 403 discretion to keep it out.
Rule 403
The court may exclude otherwise relevant evidence if it determines that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by one or more of the following:
Danger of unfair prejudice Confusion of the issues Undue Delay Waste of Time Unduly Cumulative
Danger of Unfair Prejudice
The risk the jury may decide the case on an emotional basis.
Confusion of the Issues
The risk that the evidence will create a side issue.
Misleading the Jury
The danger the jury will give undue weight to the evidence.
Evidence of Similar Occurrences
In general, if the evidence involves some other time, event, or person other than those involved in the case at hand, the evidence will be irrelevant and therefore inadmissible because the probative value is usually outweighed by pragmatic considerations.
The following are exceptions though:
Plaintiff's Accident History Similar Accidents Caused by the Same Event or Condition Intent at Issue Comparable Sales on Issue of Value Habit Industrial Custom as Standard of Care
Similar Accidents Caused by the Same Event or Condition
Generally, other accidents involving defendant are inadmissible because they suggest nothing more than general character for carelessness. But other accidents involving the same instrumentality or conduction and occurring under substantially similar circumstances may be admitted for the following purposes:
To show the existence of a dangerous condition.
To demonstrate causation.
To show prior notice to defendant.
Plaintiffs Accident History
Generally not admissible unless the cause of the plaintiff’s damages are at issue (i.e. whether he hurt his back in this accident or a previous one).
Intent in Issue
A person’s prior conduct may be admitted to provide an inference of intent on a later occasion. For example, a plaintiff in a sex discrimination case may show that the company did not hire any women previously, because their prior conduct indicates intent.
Comparable Sales on Issue of Value
Selling price of other property of similar type, in the same or general location, and close to the time period at issue, is some evidence of the value of the property at issue.
Habit
Character evidence is usually not admissible to prove conduct on a particular occasion, however, the habit of a person (or the routine of a business) is admissible as circumstantial evidence of how the person or business acted on the occasion at issue in litigation.
The two defining characteristics are the frequency of the conduct (more often is better) and the particularity of the circumstances (must only happen when certain other events occur).
Industrial Customs 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 to show how a party in the litigation should have acted (i.e. as evidence of the appropriate standard of care).
