Evidence - Relevance And Its Limits

Front 1

“Relevant Evidence”
(Rule 401, 402)

Back 1

Low standard

Evidence with any tendency to make any fact more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Logical Relevance
(1) Evidence has logical relevance if it has probative value; that is, it is logically relevant if it has some logical tendency to prove or disprove a fact of consequence.
Legal Relevance
(1) Public policy considerations are balanced against the evidence’s probative value.

Generally admissible (402)

Front 2

Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time
(Rule 403)

Back 2

6 considerations to balance probative value of relative evidence:
(1) unfair prejudice
(2) confusing the issues
(3) misleading the jury
(4) undue delay
(5) waste of time
(6) needlessly presenting cumulative or repetitive evidence

Most overruled - Balancing Test favors admission.

Front 3

Relevance in Negligence or Product Liability Cases

Back 3

Prior accidents only relevant if they occurred under substantially similar conditions.

Absence of similar accidents can be used to rebut a claim of similar condition or show lack of negligence.

Front 4

Other Types of Evidence

Back 4

Direct evidence does not require that an inference be made--immediately compels conclusion.

b. Circumstantial evidence requires that an inference be made.
--For example, if a witness testifies “I didn’t actually see defendant shoot victim, but I heard the gunshot, immediately turned around, and saw defendant running down the alley,” this testimony permits the inference that defendant shot the victim.
--if all circumstantial, must rebut all alternative hypotheses
--just as significant as other types if strong logical inferences

c. Real evidence refers to objects (like the murder weapon) relevant to the case.

Front 5

Character Evidence
Civil Cases
(Rule 404(a))

Back 5

Generally inadmissible

Exception:
--character is an essential element of the cause of action, claim, or defense

Ordinarily proved by either (1) reputation or (2) opinion
--specific acts is rarely used

Specific causes of action where character is an issue include the following:
(1) Defamation
(2) Child Custody
(3) Negligent Entrustment
(4) Negligent Hiring

Front 6

Character Evidence
Criminal Cases
(Rule 404)

Back 6

Entrapment, criminal fraud, and perjury are the few instances where character is at issue in a criminal case.

Self-defense does not mean victim's character is at issue

Relatively rare that criminal defendant's character is an essential element.

Front 7

FRE 404(a)(1) - Opening the Door

Back 7

the on/off switch is in defendant's hands - the prosecution may not initially introduce evidence of defendant’s bad character.

Defendant may “open the door” with good character evidence

Once the door to character evidence has been opened, the prosecution may rebut with reputation or opinion.

Front 8

FRE 404(a)(2) - Victim's Character

Back 8

A defendant may offer reputation or opinion evidence of the bad character of the victim (to show defendant acted in self-defense) and the prosecution may rebut the same way.
--> If all defendant says is that he acted in self-defense, the prosecution may NOT offer evidence of defendant’s character for violence.

If defendant offers evidence of victim’s character for violence, the prosecution may rebut with evidence of the victim’s character for nonviolence/peacefulness.

Prosecutor can, in cross-examination, question about specific acts but cannot bring in extrinsic evidence about such acts.

Front 9

FRE 404(b) “MIMIC” Rule

Back 9

Character evidence can be admissible for any other purpose.

M: Motive
I: Intent
M: Mistake (Absence of)
I: Identity (modus operandi)
C: Common plan
--also, Knowledge, Opportunity, Preparation, Plan or Scheme

MIMIC evidence may have occurred before, during, or after the date of the offense.

Front 10

Habit: Routine Practice
(Rule 406)

Back 10

Not a substitute for character evidence

Relevant to prove conduct in conformity of the habit.

--Look for words like: always, automatically, regularly, instinctively, without fail, habitually
--Generally, not words like: usually, often, frequently
--Generally no moral overtones.

A party may testify to his own particular habit.

Front 11

Legal Relevancy
(FRE 407–411)

Back 11

Evidence, even though relevant, may be barred due to public policy considerations.

Front 12

Subsequent Remedial Measures (SRMs)
(Rule 407)

Back 12

inadmissible to prove culpable conduct, negligence, design defect, or need for a warning.

Can be used to show: ownership or control, impeach, or show feasibility of precautions.

Feasibility of Precaution:
If defendant claims something was not feasible to prevent accident, evidence of subsequent changes can be used to refute defendant's claim (negligence & products liability)

Front 13

Compromise and Offer to Compromise
(Rule 408)

Back 13

Generally, offer to settle (which is disputed either as to validity or amount) is inadmissible to prove liability (want to encourage settlements).

Cannot be used to impeach from prior inconsistent statement.
--Exception: can use to show:
1. bias or prejudice
2. negate contention of undue delay
3. efforts to obstruct criminal investigation

Front 14

Payment of Medical and Similar Expenses
(Rule 409)

Back 14

Evidence of offering to pay medical (hospital or similar) bills is inadmissible to prove liability for an injury.

Statements made while payments are made are admissible.

Front 15

Inadmissibility of Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements
(Rule 410)

Back 15

A plea and any statements made during plea negotiations by a defendant in a civil or criminal proceeding will be inadmissible against the defendant in a later proceeding.

Does not apply to statements made to the police—only to statements made to the prosecutor (a plea bargain is a contract).

Exception:
--perjury during plea
--if defendant waives in order to allow statements to impeach

Front 16

Liability Insurance
(Rule 411)

Back 16

In general, evidence that a person was or was not insured is inadmissible to prove negligence or fault.

Exceptions:
--proof of agency
--proof of ownership or control
--witness bias or prejudice

Front 17

Rape Shield Law
(Rule 412)

(Sexual Conduct)

Back 17

In any civil or criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct, evidence offered to show the alleged victim’s sexual behavior, sexual predisposition, and other sexual history is excluded.

Exceptions--criminal cases:
(1) Defendant alleges consent and there was a previously sexual relationship between defendant and complainant
(2) Defense is that injury or semen, etc. was from someone other than defendant, can show evidence alleged victim had sexual encounter with other person
(3) I evidence of other sexual conduct on part of victim, if proof of such evidence is essential to protecting defendant’s constitutional rights

Front 18

Evidence of Similar Crimes in Sexual Assault and Child Molestation Cases
(Rules 413–415)

Back 18

If defendant accused of child molestation or sexual assault, specific acts by the defendant are admissible (need not be reported or previously tried--can be allegations meeting preponderance of evidence).

Judge has discretion (Rule 403) and can filter if gruesome or confusing.

Only need to be prior to prosecution, not prior to particular act.