Evidence

Front 1

statement

Back 1

is (1) an oral or written assertion, or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if intended by a person as an assertion

Front 2

hearsay

Back 2

an out of (this) court statement offered to prove its truth

Front 3

principle rationale of hearsay

Back 3

the person making statement was not subject to cross examination under oath in the presence of the trier of fact at the time of making the statement-making more difficult to evaluate the reliability

Front 4

four possible defects in credibility that could affect testimony

Back 4

1. declarant lacked sincerity- lying for some reason
2. defects in narrative ability of declarant- might have meant to say murphy instead of murray
3. inferior perception or ability to observe
4. declarant's bad memory

Front 5

three catagories of non hearsay statements

Back 5

1. statements offered to show their affect on hearer/reader
2. utterances that are legally operative language
3. statements offered as circumstantial evidence of the declarant's state of mind.

Front 6

Logical Relevance

Back 6

Evidence that has any probative value at all to prove an issue in the case

Front 7

FRE §403

Back 7

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 8

CEC §352

Back 8

The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.

Front 9

Prejudicial impact

Back 9

means it will confuse or mislead the jury (that the jury will give it too much weight)

The more highly probative, the more likely the evidence will not be excluded as prejudicial.

Front 10

CEC § 800 Lay Testimony

Back 10

If a witness is not testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to such an opinion as is permitted by law, including but not limited to an opinion that is:
(a)Rationally based on the perception of the witness; and
(b)Helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony.

Front 11

The Fry Test:

Back 11

How many people in the scientific community agree that this test produces the results it claims to produce and if the primary group accepted it then it was accepted under the Fry Test.

Front 12

Daubert

Back 12

for evidence to be admissible as scientific evidence, we should look to some standards like:
a. is the testing verifiable, is it re-testable
b. is it subject to peer publication
c. if something had been sent out for publication etc. the opinions might be admissible regardless of whether it was widely accepted

Front 13

Current test for scientific evidence in federal court
(totality of the circumstances)

Back 13

1.testability-can you replicate it
2.peer review and publications
3.error rate- what has kept lie detector tests from being used
4.maintenance of standards-
5.general acceptance- fry is not lost-

Front 14

FRE 407 Subsequent Remedial Measures

Back 14

When, after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an 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 as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.

Front 15

CEC 1151 subsequent remedial measures

Back 15

When, after the occurrence of an event, remedial or precautionary measures are taken, which, if taken previously, would have tended to make the event less likely to occur, evidence of such subsequent measures is inadmissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event.

Front 16

Similar Happenings Standard

Back 16

Substantial identity of material circumstances (higher than mere relevancy)

Front 17

Prior non occurance

Back 17

whenever the defendant in a civil case is trying to offer evidence of a non occurrence, it will almost always demand a very large number of prior non occurrences for a court to allow it. courts usually demand that there be some system of recording and reporting before letting in

Front 18

exam: underlying purpose of the law

Back 18

if the reason for the law doesn’t apply to the facts of your case then the law should not be applied to your case.

Front 19

Subsequent Remedial Measures
General Rule:

Back 19

when offered to show the negligence or culpability of someone, is inadmissible.

Front 20

Subsequent remedial measures in products liability cases

Back 20

California: subsequent remedial measures does not apply in product liability cases
Federal: does apply

Front 21

What can subsequent remedial measures be introduced for?

Back 21

to impeach a witness

Front 22

California offer to pay expenses without being clear it is an offer to settle or compromise

Back 22

all content of conversation is inadmissible if made out of humanitarian motives

Front 23

federal court offer to pay medical expenses without being clear it is an offer to settle or compromise

Back 23

offer to pay medical expenses is inadmissible but any admission is admissible

Front 24

common law offer to pay medical expenses without being clear it is an offer to settle or compromise

Back 24

offer and any admission is admissible

Front 25

when a court takes judicial notice of something, what evidence may be entered about it

Back 25

no evidence may be entered regarding the topic

Front 26

under federal rule 801 what three witness statements are excluded from the hearsay definition?

Back 26

1. a witness's prior identification of a person
2. prior inconsistent statement made by a witness orally under oath during a formal hearing, trial, or depo
3. prior consistent statement to rebut a charge of recent fabrication

Front 27

party admission

Back 27

Any statement made by a party is admissible against the party

Front 28

vicarious party admission

Back 28

The statement of an agent or employee is admissible against the principle/employer, if the statement of the agent concerns a matter within the scope of the agency and the statement was made during the agency relationship

Front 29

What did the Supreme Court decide in Crawford v. Washington about the 6th amendment right of confrontation

Back 29

The 6th amendment right of confrontation prohibits the use of testimonial hearsay statements against a criminal defendant if the declarant is unavailable and the defendant has had no opportunity for cross examination

Front 30

Four examples of testimonial statements

Back 30

1Sworn testimony from a grand jury; or
2.a prior trial
3.preliminary hearing
4.Unsworn responses made to police questioning

Front 31

What did the Supreme Court say in Evans are testimonial statements

Back 31

when the circumstances objectively indicate that the primary purpose of the police interrogation is to establish past events potentially relevant to a criminal prosecution

Front 32

what did the supreme court say in evans are not testimonial statements

Back 32

when the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency

Front 33

what are the 5 grounds of unavailability
(SLAPD)

Back 33

a.Death or illness
b.Absence from the jurisdiction
c.Privilege
d.Stubborn refusal to testify
e.Lack of memory (not in CA)

Front 34

Hearsay Exceptions
witness unavailable

Back 34

1. former testimony
2. statement against interest
3. Dying Declarations

Front 35

Statement Against Interest

Back 35

A statement by an unavailable declarant against her proprietary, pecuniary, or penal interest.

Front 36

four ways statement against interest is different from party admissions

Back 36

1.Has to be against the declarant’s interest at the time the statement was made
2.Any person can make a statement against interest. It doesn’t have to be a party
3.Personal knowledge is required.
4.The declarant must be unavailable

Front 37

Excited Utterance

Back 37

A statement concerning a startling event, made while the declarant is still under the stress of excitement caused by the event.

Front 38

Three factors for determining whether a statement was an excited utterance

Back 38

1. nature of the event
2. the passage of time
3. visual cues

Front 39

Present Sense Impression

Back 39

The description of an event made while the event is still occurring or immediately thereafter

Front 40

Present State of Mind

Back 40

A contemporaneous statement concerning the declarant’s feelings or emotions.

Front 41

Present Physical Condition

Back 41

A statement made to anyone about the declarant’s physical condition

Front 42

Declaration of Intent

Back 42

Declaration of intent to do something in the future, including the intent to engage in conduct with another person

Front 43

Statement made for the purpose of medical treatment or diagnosis

Back 43

A statement made to any person, (usually a doctor, nurse) for the purpose of medical treatment or diagnosis, the person makes a statement about present or past symptom, or general cause of the condition

Front 44

business records
elements

Back 44

1.Records of any type of business, including criminal enterprise
2.The records were made in the regular course of the business
3.The business regularly keeps such records
4.The record was made at or about the time of the event recorded
5.Nature of the contents
i.Information that was observed by employees of the business, or
ii.Statement that falls within an independent hearsay exception

Front 45

public records

Back 45

Records of any public office or agency
1.Activities of the office or agency itself; or
2.Matters observed pursuant to a duty imposed by law; or
3.A government report containing findings of fact or opinions resulting from an investigation authorized by law

Front 46

three privileges

Back 46

attorney-client
doctor-patient
husband-wife

Front 47

Attorney-Client Privilege
elements

Back 47

1. confidential communication
2. between attorney-client
3. made during a professional legal consultation
4. unless the privilege is waived by a client
5. or unless an exception is applicable

Front 48

Physician- Patent Privilege

Back 48

a.Federal courts refuse to recognize
c.But there is a federal psychotherapist privilege

Front 49

husband-wife privileges

Back 49

spousal Immunity
confidential communications

Front 50

spousal immunity

Back 50

i.Available only in a criminal case
ii.A spouse cannot be compelled to testify to anything against the defendant’s spouse
1.Witness spouse holds the privilege so she may voluntarily testify against the spouse if she wants to

Front 51

spousal confidential communications

Back 51

i.In criminal or civil actions a spouse is not required or allowed without consent of other spouse to disclose a confidential communication that was made by one to the other during the marriage.
ii.Both spouses hold this privilege

Front 52

exceptions to husband -wife privileges

Back 52

1.Communications or acts in furtherance of a future crime or fraud-
2.Communications or acts that are destructive of the family unit such as spousal abuse, child abuse, etc.

Front 53

what three things can you do to rehabilitate your witness?

Back 53

1. Have witness explain impeaching facts on redirect
2. show the witness’s good character for truthfulness
3. Prior consistent statement to rebut a charge of recent fabrication if it was made before the motive to fabricate arose

Front 54

Hearsay

Back 54

An out of court statement offered for its truth

Front 55

three main catagories of non hearsay statements

Back 55

1. legal operative fact
2. effect on the person who heard it
3. circumstantial evidence of the speaker's state of mind

Front 56

Common Law excited utterance

Back 56

Houston Oxygen case
1. Spontaneous description of an event as it is happening or immediately afterward
2. to another person who has also observed the event.

Front 57

Federal present sense impression

Back 57

a statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was percieving the event or condition or immediately thereafter

Front 58

California contemporaneous statement exception

Back 58

is offered to explain, qualify, or make understandable the conduct of the declarant and was made while the declarant was engaged in the conduct

Front 59

admissions of party opponent

Back 59

federal: if offered against a party and is a party's own statement, in either an individual or representative capacity it is not hearsay.
CA and common law: exception

Front 60

Admissions factors

Back 60

a.Does not have to have personal knowledge
b.Can be self serving at the time you make the statement
c.Form of the statement doesn’t matter

Front 61

the admissions exception is an exception for which two rules?

Back 61

hearsay and opinion

Front 62

AUTHORIZED ADMISSIONS

Back 62

Evidence of a statement offered against a party is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement made was made by a person authorized by the party to make a statement or statements for him concerning the subject matter

Front 63

character evidence in a criminal case to prove conduct in conformity

Back 63

1. not admissible by the P
2. admissible by the D
3. once admitted by D, admissible as rebuttal by P

Front 64

Character Evidence

Back 64

refers to a person’s general propensity or disposition

Front 65

Habit

Back 65

a repetitive response to a particular set of circumstances
i.The frequency of the conduct
ii.Particularity-very specific type of action

Front 66

admissible character evidence when character itself is at issue

Back 66

CEC & FRE: Reputation, Opinion, Specific Acts
Common Law: Specific Acts

Front 67

Character in a civil case to show propensity

Back 67

Never

Front 68

Habit/Routine Practice

Back 68

Specific Acts

Front 69

Defendant's or Victim's character-based propensities in prosecution's case

Back 69

CEC & FRE: Never
(exception for prior sex crimes in a prosecution for similar sexual offense)
Common Law: Never

Front 70

Any witness's propensities to tell the truth (reputation for bad eyesight or memory inadmissible)

Back 70

specific acts

Front 71

Admissibility of character evidence where relevant to prove intent, modeus operandi, etc.

Back 71

specific acts

Front 72

Catagories of Impeacment

Back 72

Bad Character
Defective Capacities
Specific Unrelated Error
Bias
Prior Inconsistent Statements

Front 73

Defective Capacities

Back 73

Includes Psychological as well as physical impairments to credibility
may resort directly to extrinsic evidence

Front 74

Bias

Back 74

CEC & FRE Always considered material issue
May resort directly to extrinsic evidence
At Common Law had to first lay a proper foundation

Front 75

Specific Unrelated Error
(Impeachment by Contradiction)

Back 75

Unrelated to material issues in case, relevant only to impeachment of the witness (federal & CL must take the witness answer)
no longer under CEC where only governed by 352

Front 76

General Rule: offers to settle or compromise

Back 76

both CEC and FRE exclude offers to settle or compromise and any admissions made during

Front 77

admissions made during offers to pay medical expenses

Back 77

CL & FRE: admissible
CEC: admissible unless made out of humanitarian motive

Front 78

Admissions made during settlement/compromise or offers of such

Back 78

Admissible under CL
FRE & CEC: inadmissible

Front 79

Payments or offers made out of Humanitarian motives

Back 79

CL -Admissible
FRE-admissible unless medical expenses
CEC-inadmissible

Front 80

Admissions made during offers made out of Humanitarian motives

Back 80

CL-Admissible
FRE-Admissible
CEC-Inadmissible

Front 81

Payment of or offers to pay medical expenses

Back 81

CL- Admissible
FRE- inadmissible
CEC- inadmissible

Front 82

California rule on offers

Back 82

if the statements are made out of humanitarian motives regardless of what is being offered, then the statement is inadmissible and any admissions made during it are inadmissible.

Front 83

Conclusive Presumptions

Back 83

When a presumption is conclusive the trier of fact must accept presumed Fact B if it believes the underlying Fact A. Under these circumstances the side opposing the presumption is permitted to only attack the existence of the underlying Fact A, it is precluded from offering any evidence to challenge the existence of Fact B.

Front 84

Rebuttable Presumptions

Back 84

If a presumption is rebuttable, the opponent may attack the existence of either or both Facts A and B. If the opponent of the presumed Fact B offers no evidence to attack the existence of Fact B,
however, the rebuttable presumption has the same effect as a conclusive presumption.

Front 85

Presumptions affecting the burden of producing evidence (CEC 604)

Back 85

Some rebuttable presumptions have the effect of creating a burden on one of the parties to produce a certain quantity of evidence. If the side with the burden of producing evidence fails to produce sufficient evidence to meet that burden and the issue is essential to that side's case, the judge should direct a verdict against that side

Front 86

Presumptions affecting the burden of persuasion (Burden of Proof)

Back 86

A minority of jurisdictions, however, hold that all presumptions do not merely affect the burden of producing evidence, but also affect the burden of proof (persuasion). These jurisdictions hold that presumptions do not merely disappear upon production of evidence of non-B but always linger on to affect the trier of fact's decision making process.

Front 87

Federal and Majority rule on rebutted presumptions

Back 87

upon the proof of some contrary evidence the presumption disappears and plays no part in the deliberation of the trier of fact

Front 88

which theory of rebuttable presumption does California apply?

Back 88

both. it depends on whether the primary reason for the creation of the presumption can be identified as merely a codification of an underlying logical inference or whether it was created to promote an extrinsic public policy.

Front 89

California presumption affecting the burden of presenting evidence

Back 89

if presumption was created solely to avoid the unnecessary time consumption from providing additional proof, when contrary evidence is offered by the opposing side the presumption disappears

Front 90

California presumption affecting the burden of proof

Back 90

if presumption was created to promote some extrinsic public policy (a person not heard from in five years is presumed dead) the presumption lingers on affecting the burden of proof

Front 91

Presumptions in criminal cases

Back 91

If there is no "substantial assurance" that the presumed fact (B) is "more likely than not" to flow from the underlying (basic) fact (A), then the accused has been denied due process of law.

Front 92

When is an out of court assertion not hearsay?

Back 92

when it is relevant regardless of whether it is true

Front 93

Three witness statement exclusions from hearsay

Back 93

1.Witness who makes a prior identification of a person.
2.Prior inconsistent statement made by the witness if the prior statement was made orally under oath if made at a formal hearing, trial, or deposition
3.Prior consistent statement used to rebut a charge of recent fabrication

Front 94

california dying declarations

Back 94

requires that the declarant actually die. “…by a dying person” and can be used in both criminal and civil cases. Must be a statement describing the cause and circumstances of their death.

Front 95

Common law dying declarations

Back 95

almost never applied because it was limited to criminal cases

Front 96

When a party seeks to introduce a record of past recollection he must establish

Back 96

1) that the record was made by or adopted by the witness at a time when the witness did have a recollection of the event and (2) that the witness can presently vouch for the fact that when the record was made or adopted by him, he knew that it was accurate.

Front 97

PRESENT RECOLLECTION REFRESHED

Back 97

The item used to refresh a witness’ recollection is not evidence
Therefore, rules about reliability, personal knowledge, etc. are immaterial – anything may be used to refresh recollection
For both FRE and CEC, rules apply whether recollection is refreshed before trial or during trial

Front 98

Governmental Privilege

Back 98

Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the interest can be protected by an in camera inspection.

Front 99

In order for a public figure to sue a reporter for libel, what must they show?

Back 99

actual malice (the reporter knew he was lying or conscious disregard for the truth-recklessness)

Front 100

do reporters have a constitutional right to protect their sources?

Back 100

no, and neither is there any common law right

Front 101

can a reporter be judged in contempt for refusing to discose a source

Back 101

California codifies this privilege-no but can reverse the burden
Federal- yes

Front 102

is attorney-client privlege waived by a loud attorney on the phone w/ client if others can hear him? why/why not?

Back 102

No. The privilege is held by the client. If the client reasonably believes the communication is private privilege is not waived.

Front 103

what is an attorney legally obligated to do with physical evidence given to him by a client?

Back 103

turn it over to prosecutor or police

Front 104

Under federal law, in what types of cases does doctor-patient privilege exist?

Back 104

civil cases where physical condition is not an issue in the trial

Front 105

In california, does doctor-patient privilege exist in a criminal trial?

Back 105

no

Front 106

when is the psychiatrist-patient privilege waived?

Back 106

when the plaintiff makes their psychiatric condition a SIGNIFICANT part of their claim. emotional distress claim not enough

Front 107

Dangerous Patient Exception

Back 107

waives only sessions related to the danger

Front 108

when is the identity of your client part of confidentiality?

Back 108

f it is part of the reason for retaining the attorney

Front 109

Best Evidence

Back 109

To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required

Front 110

when are duplicates admissible under the best evidence rule?

Back 110

to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.

Front 111

for what 3 types of civil cases is character evidence admissible?

Back 111

child custody, negligence, defamation

Front 112

best evidence rule

Back 112

a party who is seeking to prove the contents of a writing must either produce the original writing or provide an acceptable excuse for its absence

Front 113

rule of duplicates

Back 113

any counterpart that is reproduced by mechanical means (photocopy, etc.) in general, a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original

Front 114

exception to duplicates

Back 114

1. genuine dispute as to authentication of the original
2. if it would be unfair (photocopy of a fax might be so fuzzy it would be unfair)

Front 115

Collateral Document Rule

Back 115

the document is secondary to the case (not that important)
Expert testifies that she is a duly licensed physician- probably won’t make her bring in her license

Front 116

in what two situations does the Best Evidence Rule apply?

Back 116

•Where the writing is a legally operative document
•Where a witness is testifying to facts that she learned solely from reading about them in a writing

Front 117

when does the best evidence rule not apply?

Back 117

when a witness with personal knowledge testifies to a fact that exists independently of a writing which by coincidence records that fact

Front 118

Writings: for purposes of the best evidence rule

Back 118

documents, films, photographs, x-rays, audio recordings

Front 119

whenever there is a writing what are the four possible issues?

Back 119

Relevance, Authentication, Best Evidence, Hearsay

Front 120

Authentication: general rule

Back 120

A writing may not be entered into evidence until it has been authenticated

Front 121

Sufficient Foundation for writing authentication: Conditional Relevancy

Back 121

present sufficient evidence from which the jury may reasonably find that it is genuine

Front 122

Ancient Document Rule

Back 122

if a document is more than 20 years old, is regular on its face, and found in a place of natural custody

Front 123

Solicited Reply Doctrine

Back 123

a disputed document comes back to you in response to a solicitation

Front 124

Self Authenticating Documents

Back 124

1.Official Publications
2.Certified Copy of Public record on file in public office
3.Newspapers or Periodicals
4.Trade inscriptions and labels
bGreen giant peas
5.Acknowledged Document
a.Notaries signature certifies
6.Negotiable Paper

Front 125

3 ways to prove handwriting

Back 125

1. Lay Opinion Testimony
2. expert testimony
3. jury comparison

Front 126

leading questions; general rule

Back 126

not allowed during direct examination
are allowed during cross examination

Front 127

four situations where leading questions are allowed in direct

Back 127

1. preliminary introductory matters
2. youthful or forgetful witness
3. hostile witness
4. adverse party or someone under the control of the adverse party (employee in suit against employer)

Front 128

two situations allowed to use writings in conjunction with oral testimony

Back 128

1. refreshing recollection

Front 129

basic rule on using writings in conjunction with oral testimony

Back 129

witness is not allowed to come into court and read to the jury

Front 130

refreshing recollection

Back 130

if a witness' memory fails him we allow any tangible item to jog witness' memory

Front 131

3 protections from evidence used to "refresh recollection"

Back 131

1. must show opposing counsel
2. opposing counsel may use in cross
3. opposing counsel may enter into evidence

Front 132

5 foundational requirements for past recollection recorded

Back 132

1.Showing the writing to the witness fails to jog his memory
2.Witness had personal knowledge at a former time
3.Writing was made by the witness himself or adopted by the witness
4.Witness’ writing or adoption occurred while the event was still fresh in his memory
5.Witness is able to vouch for the accuracy of the writing at the time it was made

Front 133

opinion (lay person)

Back 133

Allowed if…
(1)Rationally based on the witness’ perception (personal knowledge); and
(2)The layperson’s opinion will be helpful to the jury in deciding a disputed fact

Front 134

Federal test for expert testimony (Daubert)

Back 134

T-testing of principles or methodology
R-rate of error
A- acceptance by other experts in the same discipline
P-peer review and publication

Front 135

Generally accepted opinions

Back 135

Speed of a vehicle
Handwriting
Whether a person was “in love”
Whether a person was drunk
Sanity or insanity

Front 136

three proper bsis for expert opinion

Back 136

a.Personal knowledge
b.Evidence from others in the trial record
c.Material from outside the record including hearsay if the out of court is of the type reasonably relied upon in the particular field relied on by experts in forming their opinions

Front 137

(federal) four rules for expert testimony

Back 137

1. Proper subject matter (scientific, technical, or specialized knowlege)
2.Adequate qualifications
(Education; or Hands on experience)
3.Reliability (Daubert Factors)
4. Proper Basis

Front 138

treatises

Back 138

can be read to the jury but actual writing may not be entered into evidence

Front 139

cross examination

Back 139

if no chance to cross examine- testimony must be stricken

Front 140

proper subject matter for cross examination

Back 140

1. matters within the scope of direct examination
2. matters relating to the witness' credibility

Front 141

when is a prior consistent statement admissible?

Back 141

a witness' prior identification in a criminal case (exclusion from hearsay)

Front 142

beagle factors

Back 142

1.The more similar it is the more prejudicial so less likely to come in for impeachment
2.The less it relates to honesty or dishonesty, the less probative it is
3.The older it is, the less probative
4.If you have multiple felony convictions, use the one that is non violent

Front 143

castro

Back 143

impeaching a witness with a crime that does not involve moral turpitude violates due process
step two: beagle factors

Front 144

california co-conspirator hearsay exception

Back 144

it must be in the course and in the furtherance

Front 145

california state of mind

Back 145

looking forward is ok- looking backward is not

Front 146

defective capacity

Back 146

the person lacks the capactity to render testimony
either eyesight, hearing etc.
or do not appreciate importance of truthfullness
always relevant

Front 147

Sexual Assault and Child Molestation

Back 147

In a case alleging sexual assault or child molestation, prior specific sexual misconduct of the D is admissible as part of the case in chief for the purpose of proving the D’s propensity to commit sex crimes

Front 148

prior bad acts
general rule

Back 148

we are not going to let the prosecution introduce evidence of prior crimes or bad acts merely to show propensity

Front 149

prior bad acts
exception

Back 149

If the defendant’s prior crimes or bad acts show something specific about the crime with which he’s currently charged, then the evidence may be admissible as evidence bearing on guilt.

Front 150

bias

Back 150

always deemed material to a case. if there is bias you are allowed to bring in extrinsic evidence to prove

Front 151

prior convictions
FRE and CEC

Back 151

cannot be used to prove current crime
may be used for purposes of motive, intent, absense of mistake or accident
federal usually requires notice

Front 152

specific unrelated error

Back 152

CA and Federal more lenient then common law

Front 153

specific unrelated error
Blue car run the red light and cause the accident. Where were you coming from?

Back 153

A bar. This might be material because might affect capacity. If the witness says coming from an adult bookstore and doesn’t want to admit it, you would not be allowed to introduce extrinsic evidence

Front 154

Common Law competence disqualifications

Back 154

Infancy: under 18
Insanity
Interests: direct legal stake in the outcome

Front 155

statements of present state of mind

Back 155

plan, emotion, intent, belief

Front 156

statements of past
state of mind
(in california)

Back 156

admissible to prove:
1. past state of mind of Dec
2. unavailability is required

Front 157

present state of mind

Back 157

admissible
1. past state of mind of dec
2. present state of mind of dec
3. future state of mind
4. present conduct
5. future conduct
6. unavailability not required

Front 158

California: admits a statement concerning a declarant's state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation at a time prior to time the statement was made if:

Back 158

The declarant is unavailable;
2) His/her state of mind, emotion or physical sensation is an issue in the action; and
3) The evidence is offered only for that limited purpose.

Front 159

california co-conspirator

Back 159

it must be in the course and in the furtherance-
it’s not in furtherance- and maybe not even in the course of – once someone is arrested what they say or do is no longer in the course

Front 160

character evidence
victim
criminal self defense

Back 160

1. In a self defense case, the criminal defendant may introduce reputation or opinion evidence about the victim’s violent character as circumstantial evidence that the victim was the first aggressor. (not specific acts)

Front 161

character evidence when character itself is at issue

Back 161

FRE & CEC reputation, opinion, specific acts
common law: specific acts

Front 162

character in civil case to show propensity

Back 162

never

Front 163

Habit/Routine
criminal or civil to show propensity

Back 163

CEC: sex crimes
FRE sex crimes
CL: never

Front 164

character evidence when relevant to prove intent, plan, modus, operandi

Back 164

specific acts

Front 165

witness propensity for truthfulness

Back 165

CEC: R, O, any felony or Misdemeanor in criminal
FRE: R, O, felony or misdemeanor involving untruth