Evidence-Bar Exam

Is the evidence relevant?

Evidence is relevant if it has any tenency to make a material fact more probably or less probable than would be the case without the evidence.

1) if some exclusionary rule is applicable (hearsay, privilege, etc.); 2) the court makes a discretionary determination that the relevanct is outweighed by certain considerations: unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undu delay, waste of time, unduly cumulative.

1) PLaintiff's accident history; 2) similar accidents caused by same insturmentality or condition; 3) Intent in issue; 4) comparablae sales on issue of value; 5) habit; 6) industrial custom as standard of care

Genearlly not admissible b/c it just shows that P is accient-prone. BUT, it is admissible if the event that caused the P's injury is at issue (i.e., did P get his shoulder hurt in THIS accident or in a previous accident)

Genearlly, other accidents involving D ar inadmissible b/c they just show D is careless. Exception: these accidents involving the same instrumentality or condition may be admitted for three potential purposes if the other accident occurred under substantially similar circumstances b/c these events may show 1) the existence of dangerous conditions; 2) causation of the accident; 3) prior notice to the defendant.

Prior similar conduct of a person may be admissible to raise an inference of the person's intent on a later occasion (example: showing an employer has not hired a woman in 10 years in a gender discrimination suit).

Price of other property of siilar type, insame general location, and close to time period is admissible of some evidence of fvalue of property at issue.

Habit (routine) is admissible to show how the person acted on the occasion at issue in the litigation. DISTINGUISH: between character (general propensity or disposition). Habit has frequency and particularity of the conduct.

Evidence as to how others in the same trade or industry have acted in the recent past may be admitted as some evidence as to how a party in th einstant litigation should have acted.

Inadmissible to prove fault or absence of fault but it is admissible to show ownership/control of insturmentality or location if any of hese issues are disputed by the defendant or it is also admissible for the purpose of impeachment of a witness (like to show bias)

Inadmisisble to show one was negligent, culpable conduct, product defect, or need for warning. But is is admissible to show ownership/control or feasibility of safer condition if either is disputed by the defendant.

The following are generally inadmissible: 1) evidence of a settlement; 2) evidence of an offer to settle; 3) statements of fact made during settlment discussions, all if for the prupose of showing liability or to impeach a witness as a prior inconsistent statement. EXCEPTIONS: 1) settlment evidence admissible for the purpose of impeaching a witness on the ground of bias; 2) statements of fact made during settlment discussion in civil lititgation with a government regulatory agency are admissible in a later criminal case (note, does NOT apply to offers to settle or settlements). NOTE: The exclusionary rule only applies if ther is a CLAIM that is DISPUTED (at the time of settlmeent discussion) either as to vailidty of the claim or amount of damages.

Can ONLY admit a plea of guilty (not withdrawing) in subsequent litigation based on the same facts under the rule of party admission. But offers to plead guilty, statements of fact made mudring any of the plea discussions, withdrawn guily plea are not admissible.

In admissible to prove liability (do not need a disputed claim). But this DOES NOT exclude other statements made in connection with an offer to pay (example: I'll pay for your hospital bills, sorry I ran the red light"--second half of statement is admissible.