Evidence (documents. relevancy? evidence that makes a fact more probable…
documents. relevancy? evidence that makes a fact more probable than not
exception 403: unfair prejudice; confusing issues; misleading the jury; undue delay; waste time; needless presentation.
exception: prior similar event; causation; similar accident or injuries; similar acs when used to prove intent, habit, and industrial custom or routine.
liability insurance and subsequent remedial measures BUT only admissible to prove ownership or control and not to demonstrate ability to pay or negligence.
settlement offers and withdrawn guilty please
Privileges (governed by common law)
physician, psychotherapist, or social worker-patient privilege
spousal testimony privilege
Authentication and expert testimony
photographs: you don';t nee expert testimony, requirement is a person who saw the scene and can testify that the photograph fairly and accurately represents what it is supposed to depict. 901(b)(1) a witness with knowledge who testifies that an item is what it claim to be is an authentication.
signatures: expert testimony not required. Anyone familiar with the handwriting can testify to its authenticity IF the the person did not get familiar for purposes of litigation.
official publications by public authority
instruments - negotiable and commercial paper
label, tag, or trademark
certified public docs
acknowledged docs (signed by notary, for example)
newspapers and periodicals that are widely circulated
Documents. Best Evidence Rule. ONLY applies if the contents of the writing, recording, photograph...are at issue. Keep an aye on this rule for instruments like contracts, deeds, and wills.
crimes involving dishonesty - the court has no discretion to exclude these conviction.
felonies not involving dishonesty - If 10 years have passed since the day of conviction, the conviction must be excluded
out of court declarant?
803(1) present sense impression w/o considering if declarant is available.
801(d)(1) (BUT the declarant needs to be currently testifying)
prior inconsistent statements - available to impeach a witness (rule 613(a))
prior consistent statements
statements of identifications
declarant must not have to be available
statement against interest
statement of personal or family history
statement offered against party procuring declarant's unavailability
presnet state of mind or physical condition
past recollection recorded
character evidence might arise here
cross-examination: asking the W directly
extrinsic evidence: admitting other evidence such as another witness or document
admissible only if W has the opportunity to explain the sttement and an adverse party has the opportunity to examine the W about the evidence
showing a bad reputation for truthfulnesss
admitted if no better witness exists. MUST be based on W's perception, clear, not based on specialized knowledge.
is the expert opinion needed at all? is the opinion supported by a proper factual basis?
criminal trial - only allowed to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, common scheme or plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or accident
civil trial - only allowed if character is at issue. Ex: child custody.
competency - capacity to observe, recollect, communicate, and appreciate the obligation to speak truthfully.