Evidence

Front 1

Relevant evidence

Back 1

Relevance defines the relationship between the proffered ev and some fact that is at issue in the case.
Ev must be shown to be probative in the sense that it makes some disputed fact either more or less likely. (may be apparent, may require establishment of foundational facts).

Front 2

Irrelevant evidence

Back 2

Evidence is irrelevant if it does not make any fact of consequence to the case more or less probable. Ev can be irrelevant if it proves nothing or if it tends to prove something that does not matter. Rules 401, 402.

Front 3

unfair prejudice, and balancing test

Back 3

relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Note that ev cannot be excluded merely bc it is prejudicial; by definition, all relevant evidence must be prejudicial to some party. Rather, the objection only obtains if the testimony has little probative value and it is unfairly prejudicial.
Ex, lurid explicit photo of injured crime victim offered to prove some fact of slight relevance, such as the clothing the victim was wearing. Availability of other means to establish the same facts will also be considered by the court. Rule 403.

Front 4

Improper Character Evidence, generally

Back 4

character ev is generally not admissible to prove that a person acted in conformity with her character.
Ex. ∆'s past burglaries cannot be offered as proof of a current charge of burglary. A driver's past accidents cannot be offered as proof of current negligence. Rule 404(a).
However, criminal ∆ may offer proof of his own good character, which the prosecution may then rebut. Rule 404(a)(1).
Past crimes and bad acts may be offered to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake. 404(b).

Front 5

Improper Character Ev, conviction of crime

Back 5

the commission, and conviction of past crimes is not admissible to prove current guilt.
The credibility of a witness who takes the stand and testifies, however, may be impeached on the basis of a prior criminal conviction, but only if the following requirements are satisfied: the crime must have been either (1) a felony, or (2) one which involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of punishments. With certain exceptions, the evidence is not admissible unless the conviction occurred within the last ten years. Juvenile adjudications are generally not admissible. Rule 609.
Impeachment is generally limited to the fact of conviction, the name of the crime, and the sentence received. The details and events that comprise the crime are generally inadmissible.

Front 6

Improper Character Evidence, untruthfulness

Back 6

Past bad acts of a person may not be offered as proof that he committed similar acts. Specific instances of conduct are admissible for the limited purpose of attacking or supporting credibility. A witness may therefore be cross-examined about past bad acts only if they reflect on truthfulness or untruthfulness. Note, however, that such bad acts (other than conviction of a crime) may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. The cross-examiner is stuck with the witness's answer. Rule 608(b).
so can examine the manner i which the witness's past bad acts are probative of untruthfulness.

Front 7

Improper Character Evidence, reputation

Back 7

Reputation ev is admissible only with regard to an individual's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness. Moreover, evidence of a truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness has been attacked. Rule 608(a).

Front 8

Improper Character Ev, generally inadmissible, but w the following exceptions

Back 8

∆ may offer evidence of own good character, which is then rebuttable by opposing party.
Conviction of Crime
untruthfulness
reputation

Front 9

lack of personal knowledge

Back 9

witnesses (other than experts) must testify from personal knowledge, which is generally defined as sensory perception. A witness's lack of personal knowledge my be obvious from the questioning, may be inherent in the testimony, or may be developed by questioning of voir dire. Rule 602

Front 10

Improper lay opinion

Back 10

Lay witnesses (nonexperts) are generally precluded from testifying as to opinions, conclusions, or inferences. Rule 701.

Lay witnesses may testify to opinions or inferences if they are rationally based on the perception of the witness. Common lay opinions include estimates of speed, distance, value, height, time, duration and temp. Lay witnesses are also commonly allowed to testify as to the mood, sanity, demeanor, sobriety, or tone of voice of another person.