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).
Public Policy Exclusions
Liability Insurance Subsequent Remedial Measures Settlement in Civil Cases Plea Discussions in Criminal Cases Offers to pay Medical Expenses
Liability Insurance
Evidence that a person has, or does not have, liability insurance is inadmissible to prove the persons fault or absence of fault. However, it may be admissible for other relevant purposes such as:
Proof of ownership or control of the instrumentality or its location (but only if these facts are disputed)
Impeachment of a Witness (usually on the grounds of bias, i.e. an insurance adjuster who is testifying).
Subsequent Remedial Measures
Post accident repairs, design changes, and policy changes are inadmissible for the purpose of proving negligence, culpable conduct, product defect, or need for warning. Such evidence may be admissible to show:
Proof of ownership or control (only if disputed)
Feasibility of a Safer Condition (only if disputed)
Settlement in Civil Cases
Evidence of a settlement or offer to settle a disputed claim (and related statements of fact) are inadmissible to:
Prove liability or weakness of one party’s case
Impeach through prior inconsistent statement
Evidence of a settlement may be admissable for purposes of impeaching a witness for bias.
Furthermore, this rule only applies if:
There is a dispute
At the time of settlement discussions
As to the validity of the claim or amount of damages
Plea Discussion in Criminal Cases
The following are inadmissable in the pending criminal case or in civil litigation based on the same facts.
Offer to Plead Guilty
Withdrawn Guilty Plea
Plea of Nolo Contendere
Statements of Fact made during any of the above discussions
But a plea of guilty that is not withdrawn is admissible in subsequent litigation based on the same facts under the rule of party admissions.
Offer to Pay Medical or Hospital Expenses
Evidence that a party has paid or offered to pay an accident victim’s hospital or medical expenses is inadmissible to prove liability.
Types of Evidence
Direct: Offered to prove the facts about the object as an end in itself
Circumstantial: Facts about the object are proved as a basis for an inference that other facts are true
Original: Has some connection with the transaction that is in question at the trial
Prepared: Also called “demonstrative” evidence
