Evidence

Front 1

If evidence is admissible for one purpose, is it necessarily admissible for any and all purposes?

Back 1

No. According to the doctrine of "limited admissibility" evidence can be admitted for one purpose w/o being admissible for another purpose

Limited admissibility is an easy issue to hide on an exam. Always look for the specific purpose for which evidence is being admitted.

Front 2

What does it mean to say that a piece of evidence is "logically relevant"

Back 2

"Logically relevant" evidence is evidence that has a tendency to make the existence of any fact in issue more probable or less probable than it would be w/o the evidence.

Front 3

On what grounds may relevant evidence be excluded?

Back 3

If the probative value of the evidence is "SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED" by the danger of unfair prejuudice, confusion, or misleading tth ejury , or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Front 4

If a piece of evidence is relevant, is it necessarily admissible?

Back 4

No. Evidence must not only be relevant, but must also clear additional obstacles (hearsay, privileges) before it will be deemed admissible.

Note that the reverse is true though... if a piece of evidence is irrelevant, it's always inadmissible.

Front 5

Must each piece of evidence be sufficient by itself to justify a verdict, to be deemed relevant?

Back 5

No. A piece of evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be w/o the evidence. FRE 401.

Front 6

Under what circumstances will evidence that an event wasn't observed or recorded, and therefore didn't occur be admissible?

Back 6

Only when the party seeking to enter the evidence can show that the occurrence probably would have been observed or recorded if it had in fact taken place.

Front 7

Can the value of an item of personal property be established through evidence of the selling price of similar items?

Back 7

Yes, as long as the goods are substantially similar and the sales are sufficiently recent.

Front 8

At trial, the P is trying to prove the D's negligence. Under what circumstances will evidence of other, unrelated injuries or accidents involving the D be admissible?

Back 8

Evidence of "similar happenings" is admissible only where the factual circumstances surrounding the two events are substantially similar.

Front 9

Jimmy Hoffa's body is found, and the search is on for the murderer. Police discover that when Hoffa was in kindergarten he stole little Sparky's cookie and, when Sparky discovered the theft, Sparky said: "Hoffa, I'm going to kill you" Sparky is tried for the murder and the prosecutor seeks to introduce the kindergarten threat into evidence. The defense objects claiming the evidence is irrelevant. Is the D right? Why?

Back 9

Yes, because of the remoteness in time of the statment

Front 10

Under the FRE, are admissions in conjunction w/ offers to settle treated the same as admissions in conjunction w/ offers to pay medical bills?

Back 10

No. Admissions in conjunction w/ settlement offers are inadmissible to prove negligence, liability, or a claim's value. FRE 408. However, admissions in conjunction w/ an offer to pay medical bills are admissible FRE 409

Front 11

At common law, are admissions in conjunction w/ offers to settle treated the same as admissions in conjuunction w/ offers to pay medical bills?

Back 11

Yes, at common law, admissions made in conjunction w/ either a settlement or medical payment are admissible

Front 12

Salome is on trial for masterminding the murder of John the Baptist. The Gov't seeks to enter Baptist's severed head into evidence. Is the head legally relevant?

Back 12

Probably not. Legal relevant evidence means evidence whose probative value outweight its prejudicial effect. Here, the probative value of the severed head is probably "substantially outweighted" by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Front 13

To impeach Walt Dipsey's primary witness, the Evil Stepmother, Snow White plans to introduce testimony of 7 dimunitive Ws in the neighborhood who will testify that the Evil Stepmother has a reputation for untruthfulness. On what basis can Dipsey exclude some of the Ws?

Back 13

Dipsey can object on the grounds that he testimony is cumulative and will cause undue dealy and waste time. Note, of course, that all the testimony is relevant, but its probative value is outweighed by the waste of time caused by its cumulative nature.

Front 14

At trial John Petit claims that he reason he strung a wife b/w the roofs of the two towers of teh WTC is that a large, slimy green monster was chains him and he was trying to get away. Watchman Willy, who sits in an observation booth on one of the Towers, wnats to testify that there was no monster, since he was on duty at the time and he would have noticed it, expecially since the deck was closed to the public at the time. Will this "did not observe" observation be admissible?

Back 14

Yes, if the proponent of Willy's testimony can show that Willy probably would have observed a large, green monster atop the WTC had one actually been there.