Special Relevance Rules Flashcards
Rule 407
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.
Notes: can be used to show ownership, control, existence of duty, feasibility of precautionary measures
Tuer v. McDonald
Doctor administered Heparin, got called away to another procedure, chose to not readminister a few hours before the operation. Patient died. Hospital now has procedure that you would readminister.
Court found that subsequent remedial measures inadmissible. While readministering was technologically feasible, Doctor felt it was unsafe in the medical context. No real dispute. And for impeachment, not like doctor was saying it was the SAFEST, just that restarting would have been less safe in his opinion - no real dispute
Wood v. Morbark Industries
Defendant said during trial that the chute length was the safest length one could have. Records show that he elongated chute after accident in question. Remedial measures allowed for impeachment - not really the safest length possible
Rule 408
Evidence of compromise offers (conduct during negotiations; furnishing, promising or offering compromise; consideration of one) not admissible to prove validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction
Can be admitted to show bias, prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct criminal investigation
Policy:
Irrelevant - compromise offer may be motivated by desire for peace over weakness of position
Want to incentivize compromises
Rule 409
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.
Accident, saying I’m sorry I ran the light, let me take care of your treatment
No claim under 408 so it’s a unilateral statement not protected.
409 will bar evidence of driver’s humane impulse to pay the medical bills (could just be rich person being nice)
But pseudo admission of guilt comes in - highly probative - we don’t like to admit guilt. We keep out this during negotiation because individual likely to have attorney coaching his words. Here, person probably not weighing words
Rule 410
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
Rule 411
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.
United States v. Biaggi
D charged with bribery/corruption, offered immunity from prosecution if he provided truthful information. D rejected, claiming he did not have information.
Trial court excluded evidence incorrectly. 410 only applies to evidence against the defendant, not against the government. Very probative - jury would expect someone to take immunity if they were actually guilty. Rejection of even lesser charge is also probative
Diamod & Vidmar
Jury Room Ruminations on Forbidden Topics
Even though banned from talking about insurance, 85% of the time, the jurors discussed it without being prompted by parties. Up to 40% of the insurance discussions could have affected the verdict
