Evidence -- Sunday

Front 1

Evidence

Important Distinctions b/w PaRE and FRE

(Key Distinctions regarding use of Expert Opinion)

Back 1

1- Expert's Methodologies:
Limited to those methodologies "generally accepted" in his field of expertise (not simply "reliable" as in FRE);
2- When is Expert Opinion Permitted?: Only when "necessary" to assist trier of fact (cf FRE: permitted when it "assists" the trier of fact -- but it need not be "necessary");
3- Scope of Expert Testimony: Expert may testify as to D's state of mind during the relevant time involved, including whether D was "insane" (cf FRE: Expert cannot testify regarding those issues)

Front 2

Evidence

Important Distinctions b/w PaRE and FRE

(Key Distinctions regarding Rule 403 standard and issues concerning D's character)

Back 2

1- Exclusion of Relevant Evidence: May be EXCLUDED only "if its probative value is OUTWEIGHED by risk of unfair prejudice..." (cf FRE: only "if... 'substantially' outweighed";
2- Character Evidence: Cannot be proven by "opinion" testimony
3- Cross-exam of D's character witness: P may only ask W about D's CONVICTIONS (cf FRE: permits inquiry into any of D's "prior bad acts");
4- D's prior bad acts to show MIMIC: May be ADMITTED only "if its risk of unfair prejudice is outweighed by its probative value"

Front 3

Evidence

Important Distinctions b/w PaRE and FRE

(Key Distinctions regarding Cross-Examination and Impeachment)

Back 3

1- Scope of Cross when Party is W: Any relevant matter (not limited to scope of direct);
2- Impeachment by offer of W's criminal convictions: Admissible only if crimes involve dishonesty or false statements (cf FRE: such crimes are admissible, but also any felonies subject to ct.'s discretion);
2- Impeachment of W by Prior bad Acts: Not admissible unless bad act resulted in prior conviction (and even then, subject to rule in #1) (cf FRE: "Didn't you cheat on your tax returns the last two years?!"...when no conviction resulted = admissible)