Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

RELEVANCE

Logical Relevance

LOGICAL EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE is RELEVANT if:

  • it tends to make the existence of any fact of consequence MORE or LESS PROBABLE than it would be WITHOUT the evidence

  • Relevant Evidence - MAY be admissible (but is NOT automatically)

  • Irrelevant Evidence - inadmissible

Limitations on Relevance

Logical Relevance ≠ Probative Value

  • Evidence can have high relevance but low 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

  • e.g., evidence of liability insurance, subsequent remedial

measures, settlement offers, guilty pleas withdrawn,

& offers to pay medical expenses

DISCRETIONARY EXCLUSION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE

DISCRETIONARY EXCLUSION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE

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

  • NOTE - memorize this standard; wrong MBE answer

choices use similar but WRONG answer choices use

similar but incorrect language.

Exclusion of Relevant Evidence

Exclusion of Relevant Evidence - often arises with evidence that is:

  • Emotionally disturbing
  • Repetitive or confusing
  • Admissible for one purpose but inadmissible for another
  • excluded to avoid risk of jury using evidence for the improper purpose

Exclusion of Relevant Evidence

Exceptions to the Discretionary Exclusion of Relevant Evidence

Exceptions - impeachment evidence based on convictions for crimes involving false statements is not subject to discretionary exclusions

Exceptions to the Discretionary Exclusion of Relevant Evidence

EXCLUSION OF RELEVANT

EVIDENCE ON PUBLIC POLICY GROUNDS

EXCLUSION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE ON PUBLIC POLICY GROUNDS

Liability Insurance

Liability Insurance - evidence of liability insurance is not admissible to prove fault or a party's ability to pay damages

  • evidence of insurance is admissible to prove anything else (e.g., ownership, control, etc.)

Liability Insurance

Subsequent

Remedial Measures

Evidence of repairs or other remedial measures taken after an injury is INADMISSIBLE to prove fault, defect, or inadequate warning.

  • Remedial measures evidence is admissible to rebut a defense that there was no feasible precaution

Subsequent Remedial Measures

Settlements, Offers to Settle, & Plea Bargaining

Civil Cases - compromises, settlement offers, and related settlements (including factual admissions) are INADMISSIBLE to prove liability or fault

  • does not include statements made before the claim or threat or litigation was asserted

Criminal Cases - pleas, offers to plea, and related statements ( including factual admissions) are inadmissible to prove guilt

Payment or Offers

to Pay Medical Expenses

Inadmissible when offered to prove liability for injuries

  • Related statements, including factual admissions, are admissible
  • Offers to pay medical expenses in exchange for a liability release are inadmissible - considered a settlement offer.

Payment or Offers to Pay Medical Expenses

SIMILAR OCCURRENCES

SIMILAR OCCURRENCES & HABIT

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

  • However, similar occurrences may be relevant for other purposes
  • Admissible Uses - similar occurrences may be admissible to prove:

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)

HABIT

A persons habit may be relevant and admissible to show that the person acted in conformity with that habit on a given occasion

  • conduct must be highly specific and frequently repeated (i.e., a persons regular response to a specific set of circumstances)
  • look for regular, instinctive, habitual conduct
  • e.g., evidence that a person habitually goes down a particular stairwell two steps at a time could be admissible as circumstantial evidence that she did so at the time in question
Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi