Evidence - Fre Relevance, Character Evidence, Impeachment

Front 1

Logical Relevance

Back 1

Evidence that has ANY TENDENCY to make existence of
- any fact that is OF CONSEQUENCE to the determination of the action
- MORE OR LESS PROBABLE

Front 2

Legal Relevance
(Court Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evidence)

Back 2

Court may exclude relevant evidence if:
- its PROBATIVE VALUE is SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED by UNFAIR PREJUDICE, CONFUSION, or WASTE OF TIME.
- Look for (1) emotionally disturbing evidence or (2) evidence ADMISSIBLE for one purpose but INADMISSIBLE for another purpose

Front 3

Relevant evidence that may be excluded for POLICY REASONS (5 types)

Back 3

1. Settlement Offers
2. Offers to Pay Medical Expenses
3. Subsequent Remedial Measures or Repairs
4. Withdrawn Guilty Pleas or Offers to Plea
5. Evidence of Liability Insurance

Front 4

Liability Evidence (admissibility)

Back 4

- Inadmissible to prove culpable conduct like negligence or D's ability to pay a judgment.
- But limited in scope: admissible to prove anything else.

Front 5

Subsequent Remedial Measures or Repairs (admissibility)
(evidence of safety measures or repairs after an accident)

Back 5

- Inadmissible to prove culpable conduct or, in a products liability action, defective product design.
- But limited in scope: admissible to prove anything else; admissible to rebut defense of no feasible precaution

Front 6

Settlements, Offer to Settle, and Pleas (and related statements) (admissibility)

Back 6

- In a CIVIL CASE: inadmissible to prove fault or liability.
- In a CRIMINAL CASE: inadmissible to prove guilt.
- Excludes all RELATED statements/ those made DURING parties' negotiations, pleas, offers to plea
- EXCEPTIONS: where no claim is yet asserted; where there is no dispute as to liability or damages

Front 7

Payment or Offers to Pay Medical Expenses (admissibility)

Back 7

- Inadmissible when offered to prove liability for injuries in question.
- BUT RELATED STATEMENTS are still admissible (so distinguish from ev. that falls under the settlement rule)

Front 8

Similar Occurrences Evidence (admissibility)

Back 8

- Usually irrelevant if it is not about the specific ppl & events at issue.
- Evidence about OTHER ppl or events relevant when there are certain SIMILARITIES betw that evid. and the ppl & events at issue.
- Similar occurrences sometimes admissible to prove CAUSATION

Front 9

Similar Occurrences Evidence
(8 types- first 4)

Back 9

1. Pattern of fraudulent claims = relevant
2. Preexisting conditions = relevant
3. Previous similar acts = relevant to prove intent
4. Evidence to rebut a defense of impossibility = relevant

Front 10

Similar Occurrences Evidence
(8 types- last 4)

Back 10

5. Comparable sales to establish value = relevant
6. Habit = relevant to show person acted in accordance with habit on the occasion in Q
7. Routine Biz Practice = relevant to show conduct in conformity w/ practice on the occasion in Q
8. Industrial Custom = relevant to prove standard of care in negl case

Front 11

Habit Evidence (defined)
- Admissible

Back 11

- Habit of a person to act in a certain way is relevant and admissible to show the person acted in accordance w/ the habit on the occasion in Q.
- Habit describes a specific conduct and makes no moral judgment.
- Habit = frequently repeated conduct (not only a few times)

Front 12

CHARACTER EVIDENCE (defined)

Back 12

- General statement that conveys a moral judgment
- REPUTATION, OPINION, or SPECIFIC ACTS.
- Evidence must always concern a pertinent character trait

Front 13

Character Evidence in Civil Cases (admissibility)

Back 13

- INADMISSIBLE to prove conduct
- EXCEPT sexual assault/child molestation
- ADMISSIBLE where character is in issue (essential element of claim, defense, or COA)
(defamation, negligent entrustment, custody, self-D, fraud)
- But specific bad acts not admissible as char evidence

Front 14

Character Evidence to prove Conduct in Criminal Cases
- DEFENDANT'S Character

Back 14

P CAN'T BE THE 1ST to offer such evidence (except for sexual case).
- D must testify & can show his own good char; or attack V’s char (P can then attack D’s char so opens BOTH doors)
- Direct: reputation & opinion but NO specific incidents.
- Cross: reputation, opinion, & specific instances ALL admissible.

Front 15

Character Evidence to prove Conduct in Criminal Cases
- VICTIM'S Character

Back 15

P cannot be 1st to offer to prove conduct.
- 2 ways D can open the door: 1) D offers evid of V’s char, P may rebut, & 2) homicide case, if D offers evid V attacked 1st, P may offer evid of V’s char for peacefulness
- Direct: reputation & opinion permitted but NO specific instances
- Cross: all three permitted

Front 16

Specific Acts of Conduct

Back 16

Specific instances of D’s conduct may be admitted to prove anything other than character that is relevant = MIMIC (Motive, Intent, Mistake, Identity, Common plan/scheme).
- Must be sufficient evid to support jury finding that D committed prior act + 403 balancing test
- CAN intro evid of Ds Prior Bad Acts for: Rape, Child Mol, Sex Assault

Front 17

IMPEACHMENT of Witnesses

Back 17

The casting of an adverse reflection on the veracity of a W by cross exam or extrinsic evidence, such as putting another W on stand who contradicts W.
Before a W may be impeached, he must be given opportunity to explain/deny conduct

Front 18

Methods of Impeachment (4)

Back 18

1. Prior Inconsistent Statements
2. Convictions of a Crime Not Involving False Statement
3. Character
4. Bias

Front 19

Prior Inconsistent Statements

Back 19

PIS of W who testifies at trial = non hearsay if given under oath at trial/depo.
Otherwise = hearsay & inadmissible if offered to prove truth.

Front 20

Convictions of a Crime Not Involving False Statement

Back 20

- Felonies not involv FS may be admissible to impeach subject to 403 balancing test.
- Misdemeanors not involv FS are INADMISSIBLE to impeach.
Conviction may be proved w/ extrinsic evid.
- More than 10 yrs since, inadmissible subject to 403 balancing test.

Front 21

Character

Back 21

Can impeach witness through:
1) Reputation;
2) Opinion; (extrinsic evidence OK) and
3) Specific Acts (involving lying) (NO extrinsic evidence for specific acts), unless it is conviction for a crime

Front 22

Bias

Back 22

Evidence that W is biased or has an interest in the outcome of the case tends to show W has motive to lie.
- Prove on cross-exam or by extrinsic evidence