Relevancy And Reasons for Excluding Relevant Evidence Flashcards
(11 cards)
Probative Value
Relevancy
The central governing principle of evidence is relevance. To be evidence, evidence must be relevant. Relevant evidence is any evidence that tends to make the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. All relevant evidence is admissible unless it is hearsay or precluded by other considerations such as confusion to the jury, waste of time, or danger of unfair prejudice.
Authentication and Identification
Authentication and Identification
All tangible evidence must be authenticated. Tangible evidence is any evidence not presented as oral or verbal. When a party seeks to introduce a document or any object or thing, the party must also be able to provide a basis for a finding that the document or object really is what the proponent claims it is. To authenticate handwriting, one may use a lay witness who was familiar with the handwriting before the litigation, an expert witness, or the trier of fact. Anyone can authenticate a voice, and anyone who has personal knowledge of the scene in the photograph may authenticate it.
Character and Related Concepts
Admissibility of Character
Character evidence is ordinarily not admissible in civil or criminal cases. Generally, evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion, the person acted in accordance with the character trait. Character evidence in civil cases is usually inadmissible to prove conduct in conformity with the character trait. However, character evidence is admissible and could be proven by reputation, opinion or specific acts, in civil cases where character is an essential element of the claim or defense. In a criminal case, character evidence is generally inadmissible, unless the defendant “opens the door” with evidence of a relevant good trait relating to himself. The defense in a criminal case can offer either opinion evidence or reputation evidence of character traits of the criminal defendant which are inconsistent with alleged criminal activity.
Character and Related Concepts
Methods of Proving Character
In civil cases, it is only admissible in cases regarding negligent entrustment or hiring, defamation, and child custody. It may be proved by reputation testimony, opinion testimony, or specific acts. In criminal cases, the defendant must “open the door,” and can use reputation or opinion evidence to prove a relevant character trait to the crime at issue. The prosecution can then rebut with reputation evidence, opinion evidence, and specific acts.
Character and Related Concepts
Habit and Routine Practice
Evidence of a person’s or organization’s habit or routine practice may be admitted to prove that it acted in accordance with the habit or rountine practice. A habit is a person’s particular routine reaction to a specific set of circumstances. Because habit evidence can run afoul of the bans on character evidence and prior bad acts evidence, courts generally limit habit evidence to proof of relevant behaviors that are not just consistent, but semi-automatic. There must also be regularity and specificity.
Character and Related Concepts
Other Crimes, Acts, Transactions, and Events
A defendant’s prior bad acts may be admissible to prove MIMIC (motive, intent, mistake or lack of mistake, identity, and common scheme or plan). MIMIC can be used in criminal and civil cases and is not considere character evidence; it is considered relevant prior acts which relate to aspects of the crime at issue.
Character and Related Concepts
Prior Sexual Misconduct of A Defendant
If a defendant is accused of a sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other sexual assault or child molestation. The evidence may be considered on any matter to which it is relevant, including that he acted in accordance with his character. Only specific acts can be offered.
Expert Testimony
Qualifications of Witnesses
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify if it is helpful to the trier of fact and based on sufficient facts or data. The party offering the expert must show by preponderance of the evidence that the expert is qualified and the judge has discretion to let someone in as an expert. The decision will be reviwed under the abuse of discretion standard.
Expert Testimony
Bases of Testimony
An expert may base an opinion on personal knowledge, facts that are in the record and made known to the expert by a hypothetical or testimony at trial, or facts not in the record if they are the kind of facts that other experts would reasonably rely on.
Expert Testimony
Ultimate Issue Rule
An expert opinion may embrace an ultimate issue (cause of accident, whether a product is defective, whether a signature is forged, etc). But, in a criminal case, an expert witness must not state whether the defendant had the requisite mens rea. An expert further cannot give a legal opinion in a civil case on a legal conclusion related to the ultimate issue, “the defendant is contributorily negligent.”
Expert Testimony
Real, Demonstrative, and Experimental Evidence
Demonstrative exhibits are merely physical objects used as aids to help the jury understand the testimony. Photos and diagrams of evidence or locations can be brought in if they are relevant and accurate, charts and summaries of data and models can be brought in, so long as they are authenticated by the person that made them and the real evidence behind them is available, and experiments are allowed in the courtroom subject to the judge’s discretion and so long as they are done in the same or substantially the same conditions.
