When is evidence relevant?
401(a) - Evidence is relevant when it has "any tendency" to make a fact more or less likely and(b) - the fact is of consequence in determining the action
When is a fact "of consequence"?
When it can be connected to an essential element of the case through a chain of inferences.
What relevant evidence is admissible?
402All relevant evidence is admissible unless some rule makes it inadmissible
When is relevant evidence to be excluded? (the general rule)
403If the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence, it should be excluded
What are the dangers of unfair prejudice?
Unfair prejudiceConfusing the issuesMisleading the juryUndue Delay/Wasting timeNeedless cumulative evidence
Under what circumstances should a limiting instruction be given to the jury?
105If the evidence has an admissible use and a non admissible use, it can be admitted with a limiting instruction telling the jury to only consider its permissible purpose.
What are the specific rules to exclude relevant evidence?
407 - Subsequent Remedial Measures408 - Compromise offers & negotiations409 - Offers to Pay Medical and Similar Expenses410 - Please, Plea discussions, and related statements411 - Liability Insurance
What is evidence of subsequent remedial measures not admissible to prove?
When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:-Negligence;-Culpable conduct;-A defect in a product or its design; or-A need for a warning or instruction.But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or—if disputed—proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures ("if disputed" requirement doesn't apply to ev. offered for impeachment).Subsequent remedial measures are actions taken after a damaging event in order to prevent its reocurence.
When are compromise offers and negotiations not admissible?
(a) Prohibited Uses - Evidence of the following is not admissible—on behalf of any party—either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim (includes informal claims, starts of neg. - use policies to make arg.; 104a to see if effort to compromise) or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction: 1. Furnishing, promising, or offering—or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept—a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and 2. Conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim—except when offered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim by a public office in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority.(b) Exceptions- The court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness's bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
When is evidence of an offer to pay medical or similar expenses not admissible?
409Evidence of furnishing, promising to pay, or offering to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses resulting from an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury.
When is evidence of a withdrawn plea/statement made during pleas discussion not admissible?
(a) Prohibited Uses - In a civil or criminal case, evidence of the following is not admissible against the D who made the plea or participated in the plea discussions: 1.) A guilty plea that was later withdrawn;A nolo contendere plea; 2.) A statement made during a proceeding on either of those pleas under the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 or a comparable state procedure; or 3.) A statement made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority if the discussions did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in a later-withdrawn guilty plea.(b) Exceptions - The court may admit a statement described in Rule 410(a)(3) or (4):In any proceeding in which another statement made during the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced, if in fairness the statements ought to be considered together; orIn a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement, if the D made the statement under oath, on the record, and with counsel present.