Relevance and public policy exclusions Flashcards
definition and components of relevance
evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence
Material – proposition must be of consequence in the case [but need not speak to ultimate issue]
probative – evidence must have “any tendency” to make the proposition more or less likely
low bar! federal rules are permissive
general rules of admissibility
if evidence is relevant – it is admissible UNLESS
(1) exclusionary rule of FRE keeps it out
(2) 403 balancing test keeps it out
if evidence is irrelevant - it is inadmissible ALWAYS
In MOST cases/ IN GENERAL, when does a judge have discretion to keep out a piece of evidence?
State the rule and list/explain the circumstances
when rule 403 applies
i.e. when the probative value of the evidence is SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED BY the danger of one of the following pragmatic considerations:
(1) danger of unfair prejudice
– danger that jury will decide the case on emotional basis
(2) confusion of the issues
– evidence creates a side issue
(3) misleading the jury
– there is a danger that the jury will give undue weight to the evidence, such as expert testimony
(4) undue delay
(5) waste of time
(6) needless presentation of cumulative (repetitive) evidence
NOT considerations:
- surprise
[these 403 considerations listed in the rule are EXHAUSTIVE — judge cannot consider any other concerns!]
What is the admissibility rule surrounding “similar occurrences?”
In general, prior similar occurrences are not admissible. if evidence involves some time, event or person OTHER than that involved in the present case, it is INADMISSIBLE
Why? 403 balancing rule keeps it out since it is usually confusing to the jury or wastes time or will result in prejudice
What are RELEVANT similar occurrences? And what can they be used to demonstrate?
(1a) plaintiff’s accident history of making prior similar claims or having similar accidents
admissible to prove– plaintiff has made previous similar false claims [tends to show claim is false]
inadmissible to prove– action is invalid due to person being accident prone or litigious
(1b) plaintiff’s accident history of having same bodily injury on SAME PART OF THEIR BODY, when cause of plaintiff’s damages is at issue
admissible to prove –- plaintiff’s injury is attributable, in whole or in part, to the prior injury rather than current accident
inadmissible to prove – claim is invalid due to person being accident prone or litigious
(2) similar accidents or injuries caused by same event or condition and occurring under substantially similar circumstances
Admissible to prove:
(a) the existence of a dangerous condition
(b) the dangerous condition was the cause of the present injury
(c) the defendant had notice of the dangerous condition [if the other accident occurred before the P’s accident]
(2a) absence of similar attacks
usually inadmissible to show absence of negligent conduct or lack of a defect, but evidence of absence of COMPLAINT may be admissible to show defendant’s lack of knowledge of the danger
(3) previous similar acts admissible to prove present motive or intent in the current case
(4) sales of similar property [does not include prices quoted in mere offers to purchase] admissible to prove the property’s value
(5) Prior occurrences used to rebut claim of impossibility
(6) causation
[evidence that X caused Y1 in prior case admissible to show that X caused Y2 in this case]
(7) habit and business routine evidence admissible as circumstantial evidence that the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit on the occasion at issue in the case
NOT admissible as character evidence
(8) industry custom in same trade or industry admissible to as evidence of standard of care in that trade or industry [but not conclusive to show negligence]
What are the definition and the characteristics of habit evidence?
Habit evidence describes a person’s regular response to a specific set of circumstances.
(1) frequency of conduct
(2) particularity of circumstances
May be used to show someone acted in accordance with that HABIT [distinguish from character evidence]
Habit vs. Character evidence chart (page 7 of CRM handout)
What types of evidence may be excluded for public policy reasons and under what circumstances may these types be excluded ?
(1) liability insurance
Inadmissible:
(a) to prove negligence/fault or
(b) to prove ability to pay
Admissible:
(a) to prove ownership or control (if disputed),
(b) to impeach a Witness (usually to show bias)
(c) as part of an admission of liability, where the reference to insurance coverage cannot be severed without lessening its probative value as an admission of liability [“don’t worry, my insurance will pay it off”]
(2) subsequent remedial measures
Inadmissible:
(a) to prove negligence,
(b) to prove culpable conduct
(c) to prove there was a defect in a product or its design, or
(d) to prove there was a need for a warning or instruction in the product
Admissible:
(a) to prove ownership or control, if disputed
(b) to rebut a claim that precautions were impossible/not feasible, or
(c) to prove destruction of evidence
(3) Civil settlement offers and negotiations (ex: conduct or statements made in course of negotiating a compromise, including direct admissions of liability)
Inadmissible:
(a) to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim, or
(b) to impeach a Witness by prior inconsistent statement or contradiction
Admissible: for all other purposes (including impeaching a witness for bias)
ONLY KICKS IN WHEN
- there was a claim or some indication that a party was going to make a claim [but party need not have filed suit]
- claim must have been in dispute of either (1) liability or (2) amount
AND, EXCEPTION TO SETTLEMENT RULE:
civil dispute with government authority
(4) offers to pay and payment of medical expenses
Inadmissible: to prove culpable conduct/liability for the injury
CAVEAT: admissions of fact [“I’m sorry I ran the red light”] accompanying an offer to pay medical expenses are admissible
CAVEAT TO CAVEAT: beware of offers to settle that are offers to pay – “I’ll pay if you drop the case” – the offer to pay will be excluded along with the offer to settle
Admissible: all other purposes
(5) withdrawn guilty pleas, offers to plead guilty, actual pleas of nolo contendere (no contest), statements of fact made during any of the previously listed plea discussions
Admissible: never
Inadmissible: nearly all the time
NOTE: actual guilty plea (not withdrawn) is generally admissible in related litigation as a statement of an opposing party [see hearsay section]
what is the exception to the rule that you generally cannot introduce evidence of settlement offers and negotiations to prove validity/amount of disputed claim or impeach by inconsistent statement?
civil disputes with government authority
conduct or statements made during compromise negotiations regarding a CIVIL dispute with a governmental regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority are not excluded when offered in a CRIMINAL case
Ex: defendant’s admissions of fact during settlement negotiations with the SEC would be admissible against the D in criminal trial for fraud
