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;
38 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Relevance
|
Evidnec is relevant if it has any tendency to make a material facte more probable or less probable
|
|
Admissibility of Liability Insurance
|
Evidence that a person has liability insurance is inadmissible for the purpose of proving fault or absence of fault.
Maybe admissible to prove ownership or impeach witness |
|
Admissibility of Subsequent remedial measures
|
Repairs, design changes, or policy changes taken after an accident are indamissible for proving: negligence, culpable conduct, a product defect, or a need for a warning.
Maybe used to prove ownership, control, feasiability of safe condition |
|
Admissibility of Settlements
|
If there is a disputed claim, the evidence of settlements, offers to settle, or statements made in settlement discussions are inadmissible if offered to prove liability.
|
|
Offer to pay hospital and medical expenses
|
Evidence that party has paid or offered to pay an accidnet victim's hospital or medical expense is inadmissible to prove liability.
|
|
Admissibility of Pleas and plea discussion
|
An offer to plea guilty or a withdrawn guilty peas are inadmissible against a defendant in a pending criminal litigation or in a subsequent case
|
|
Character evidence on a criminal case
|
Evidence if the defendant's character is generally not admissible to prove propensity
|
|
Defendant's introduction of character evidence
criminal case) |
The defendant may introduce evidence of his own good character of relevant trait.
If the defendant does so, the prosecution may rebut with evidence of defendant's bad character for the same trait |
|
Form of character evidence
|
The proper method of character evidence is reputation or opinion
CANNOT use a specific acts |
|
Defendant's Character Offered by the Prosecution
|
If the defendant has "opened door" by calling character witnesses, the prosecution may rebut by:
Calling it own witnesses to testify to teh defendant's relevant bad character (reputaton or opinion) By cross examining defendants character witnesses by questioning their knowledge specific act "did you know" "have you heard" |
|
Victim's Character in Self defense case
|
A criminal defendant may offer evidence of the vitcims violent character to prove that the victim was the first agressor. (reputation or opinion)
Proscution may rebut with the victims good character trait or with the defendant's bad character trait. |
|
Defendants Rules for Defendants Knowledge of the victims character for violence
|
The defendant may offer evidence of his own knowledge of the victim's bad character for violence for the purpose of showing he reasonbaly believed in a need to use self defense
|
|
Victim's character in a sexual misconduct trial
|
In a case involving alleged sexual misconduct (civil or criminal), the defendant ordinarily may not introduce evidece of the victim's promiscuity or the victim's prior sexual conduct.
|
|
When a defendant can introduce evidence of a victim's sexual character
|
Evidence of the victim's other sexual activity witht eh defendant, but only if the defense is consent,
To prove that someone other than the defendant was the souce of the injury Evidence required to be admitted by the defendant's due process rights |
|
Character evidence in civil case
|
Character evidence is generally inadmissible to propensity in a civil case UNLESS
it is essential element of a claimor defense (negligent hiring, defamation: libel and slander) |
|
M-I-M-I-C rule
|
If the defendants other crimes or bad acts may be admissible if offered to show something specific about the charge crime
Motitve, Intent, Mistake of accident, Identity (MO), Common scheme or plan |
|
Similar Occurences
|
To be relevant, evidence must relate to some time, event, or person involves in the present litigatoin.
|
|
Similar Accidents causes by same event or condition
|
Other similar accidnets are generally not admissible, unles other accidents involving the same instrumentality or condition, and occurrin under substantially similar circumstances may be admitted for 3 potential purposes
Existence of dangerous condition, causation, prior notice to the defendant |
|
Habit Evidence
|
habit of person (or routine of a business) is admissible to infer how the person (or business) acted on the occasion at issue in the litigation.
|
|
Def. of Habit
|
A repetitive response to a particular set of circumstances. (frequency and particularity)
|
|
Business Routine
|
Regular practice of an organization is admissible to prove conduct on a particular occasion
|
|
Authenticating preson's handwriting
|
Lay opinion, expert opinion and comparison, and jury comparision.
|
|
Ancient Document Rule
|
1) at least 20 years old (NY 30 years
2)Facially free of suspicion AND 3) Found where it would be expected |
|
Solicited Reply Doctrine
|
Documents can be authenticated by evidence that it was received in repsonse to a prior communication to teh alleged author
|
|
Self Authenicating Documents
|
Officail government publications, certified copies of public or private docs, newspapers, periodicals, trade inscriptions, ackowledged documents, commercial paper, and certified business records.
|
|
Best evidence Rule
|
A party seeks to prove the contents of a writing, the party must either: produce the writing, OR provide an acceptable excuse for its absence
|
|
Dead Man's Statute
|
In a civil action an interested party may not testify against a dead party's representative about communications or transaction with the dead party.
|
|
Refreshing Recollection
|
But, if a witness forgets somethinf he onse knew, he may be shown a writing to his memory.
|
|
Past Recollent recorded
|
A writing may be read to the jury as a past recollection recorded is: the witness once had personal knowledge; the witness now forgets, showing the writing to witness fails to jog the witness's memory; the writing was made by the witness, the writing was made when the event was freshin the witnes's memory, and the witness can attest that the writing was accurate.
|
|
Lay Witness
|
A lay witness is can testify for to sobriety, emotions, speed, handwriting, and smell
|
|
Expert Witness
|
A witness may testify to an opinion as an expert only if:
the witness is qualified (by education or experience); the testimony is about a subject matter where scientific or specialized knowledge will be helpful to the jury The oopinion has a proper basis The opinion is reliable |
|
Proper basis for opinion
|
The opinion must be based on a reasonable degree of probability or reasonable certainty; and the opinion must be based on the experts personal knowledge, evidnece that is already in teh trial record, or facts that are reasonably relied upon by experts in the feild.
|
|
Cross Examination
|
It is a right to cross examine a witness. If the witness cannot be crossed then the testimony is struck.
|
|
Impeachment Methods
|
Prior inconsistent statements, bias interest (motive), sensory deficiencies, reputation opinion, criminal conviction, bad acts, and contradictions
|
|
Witness's bad characer for truthfulness
|
Veracity: the character trait of being truthful. A witness's bad character for veracity is a frequent subject of impeachment and governed by very specific rules.
|
|
Federal Rule on Conviction to Impeach
|
A conviction (or release from preison) must be within 10 years of the trial, crimes of dishonesty or false statement are admissible, or felony if its probative value does not outweigh the risk of unfair prejudice.
|
|
Reliabilty of Expert Testimony
|
To be admissible expret opinion must be be sufficiently reliable:
The espert has used relied methods The expert has relialy applied those methods to the particular facts of the case |
|
Ultimate Issue
|
Opinion tetimony generally permissible even if it addresses an ultimate issue in the case.
EXCEPION: In a driminal case, an expert witness may not testify that the defendant did or did not have th required mens rea |