Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
EVIDENCE is RELEVANT if:
Logical Relevance ≠ Probative Value
Discretionary Exclusion - courts can exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its danger of unfair prejudice or confusion
Public Policy Exclusions - evidence can be excluded in instances where allowing its inclusion could run counter to public policy considerations
measures, settlement offers, guilty pleas withdrawn,
& offers to pay medical expenses
A court may exclude logically relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, and waste of time.
Balancing Test - to exclude relevant evidence, probative value must be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
choices use similar but WRONG answer choices use
similar but incorrect language.
Exclusion of Relevant Evidence - often arises with evidence that is:
Exceptions - impeachment evidence based on convictions for crimes involving false statements is not subject to discretionary exclusions
Liability Insurance - evidence of liability insurance is not admissible to prove fault or a party's ability to pay damages
Evidence of repairs or other remedial measures taken after an injury is INADMISSIBLE to prove fault, defect, or inadequate warning.
Civil Cases - compromises, settlement offers, and related settlements (including factual admissions) are INADMISSIBLE to prove liability or fault
Criminal Cases - pleas, offers to plea, and related statements ( including factual admissions) are inadmissible to prove guilt
Inadmissible when offered to prove liability for injuries
Evidence of prior similar occurrences concerning the time, event, or person in the present controversy is often inadmissible as irrelevant or as presenting an unfair risk of prejudice
1) Causation
2) Prior accidents demonstrating:
a. A pattern of fraudulent claims
b. Pre-existing conditions
3) Intent or absence of mistake
4) To rebut a defense of impossibility
5) Value
6) Industry custom (e.g., to prove standard of care)
A persons habit may be relevant and admissible to show that the person acted in conformity with that habit on a given occasion