Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
15 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
Rule 401
|
Definition of "Relevant Evidence"
|
“Relevant evidence” means any evidence tending to makes the existence or nonexistence of a fact necessary for the resolution of the action more or less probable.
|
|
Rule 402
|
Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible, Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible
|
All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed in Midlands pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.
|
|
Rule 403
|
Exclusion of Relevant Evidence Due to Prejudice, Confusion, and Waste of Time
|
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.
|
|
Rule 404a
|
Character Evidence Generally inadmissible to prove conformity therewith
|
Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion
|
|
Rule 404b
|
Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts
|
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
The prosecution in a criminal case shall provide written notice of such intent prior to witness selection in the captains' meeting. |
|
Rule 405
|
Methods of Proving Character
|
|
|
Rule 405a
|
Opinion and Reputation
|
In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross- examination inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct.
|
|
Rule 405b
|
Specific Instances of Conduct
|
In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of that person's conduct.
|
|
Rule 406
|
Habit; Routine Practice
|
Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.
|
|
Rule 407
|
Subsequent Remedial Measures
|
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.
|
|
Rule 408
|
Compromise and Offers to Compromise
|
Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or
(2) accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible. This rule does not require the exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations. This rule also does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution. |
|
Rule 409
|
Payment of Medical and Similar Expenses
|
Evidence of furnishing or offering or promising to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury.
|
|
Rule 410
|
Inadmissibility of Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements
|
Except as otherwise provided in this rule, evidence of the following is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussions:
(1) a plea of guilty which was later withdrawn; (2) a plea of nolo contendere; (4) any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority which does not result in a plea of guilty or which result in a plea of guilty later withdrawn. |
|
Rule 411
|
Liability Insurance
|
Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.
|
|
Rule 301
|
Presumptions in General in Civil Actions and Proceedings
|
In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by the laws of Midlands or by these rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast.
|