Amta Rules Of Evidence 04-05 Articles Iii And Iv

Front 1

301 presumption in general in civial actions and proceedings

Back 1

In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by the laws of Midlands or by these rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast.

Front 2

401 definition of "relevant evidence"

Back 2

“relevant evidence” means any evidence tending to makes the existence or non existence of a fact necessary for the resolution of the action more or less probable

Front 3

402. relevant evidence generally admissable; irrelevant evidence inadmissible

Back 3

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed in the Midlands pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.

Front 4

403 exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time

Back 4

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Front 5

404 character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes
a. character evidence generally

Back 5

Evidence of a persons character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion

Front 6

404.a.1
character of accused

Back 6

Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or if evidence of a trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime is offered by an accused and admitted under rule 404a2, evidence of the same trait of character of the accused offered by the prosecution.

Front 7

404.a.2
character of alleged victim

Back 7

Evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime offered by an accused , or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the alleged victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the alleged victim was the first aggressor.

Front 8

404.a.3
character of witness

Back 8

evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in rules 607, 608, and 609

Front 9

404.b
Other crimes, wrongs, or acts

Back 9

Evidence of other crime, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. The prosecution in a criminal case shall provide written notice of such intent prior to witness selection in the captains’ meeting.

Front 10

405 methods of proving character
a. reputation or opinion

Back 10

In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct.

Front 11

405.b
specific instances of conduct

Back 11

In cases in which character or a trait of a character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of that person’s conduct.

Front 12

406 habit; routine practice

Back 12

Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice

Front 13

407 subsequent remedial measures

Back 13

When, after and injury or harm allegedly caused by and event, measures are taken that, if taken previously, would have made the 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, a defect in a product’s design, or a need for a warning or instruction. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such a proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.

Front 14

408. Compromise and Offers to Compromise

Back 14

Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or (2) accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible. This rule does not require the exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations. This rule also does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.

Front 15

409. Payment of Medical and Similar Expenses

Back 15

Evidence of furnishing or offering or promising to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury

Front 16

410. Inadmissibility of Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements

Back 16

Except as otherwise provided in this rule, evidence of the following is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussions:
1) a plea of guilty which was later withdrawn;

(2) a plea of nolo contendere;

4) any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority which does not result in a plea of guilty or which result in a plea of guilty later withdrawn.

However, such a statement is admissible (i) in any proceeding wherein another statement made in the course of the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced and the statement ought in fairness be considered contemporaneously with it, or (ii) in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement if the statement was made by the defendant under oath, on the record and in the presence of counsel.

Front 17

411. Liability Insurance

Back 17

Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.