Evidence For Final
Relevance:
The determinant: what is the purpose it is introduced?
1. Logical relevance
· If it has any tendency to make a material proposition/fact more likely or less likely than it would be w/o the evidence
· FRE 401:
· Only when it involves some other time, person, or event- then keep eye- it may not be logical- matter of degree
Situations which are exceptions to warning signals that it looks like it is not logical but it is! Thus admissible.
1. Event of causation:
2. Prior accidents or claims: usually in a tort or product liability context: comes in two dimensions: GENERALLY NOT ADMITTED
a) the D wants to show the prior accidents of the P
– generally not admissible unless
1. the prior claims were fraudulent in nature
2. if the prior accidents or claims are relevant to the claim at hand ( he hurt himself in the other accident)
b) the P wants to show other accidents that involve the same dangerous instrumentality.
– which occurred under the same or similar circumstance are admissible to:
1. show notice to municipality ( If the municipality says that they were not at fault b/c they did not know- but if claims are there- they had notice)
2. to show it is a defective and dangerous condition
3. where intent or state of mind of a party is in issue ( to show discriminatory intent of D)
4. to rebut or to impeach. (when opponent changes his story- and thus opens the door to your evidence- or it is impossible )
5. comparable sales to establ
admissible at the time of litigated event to infer conduct – generalized conduct.
– Prior act evidence- NOT admissible
7. Industrial or business routine IS admissible to infer at the time the entity acted in accordance to business routine-
8. Industrial business or custom of trade- IS admissible as non-conclusive evidence of the standard of care-as indication of what the parties should have done.
2. Discretionary/pragmatic/policy based relevance: FRE 403
· It may be kept out if its probative value is SUBSTANTIALLY outweighed.
· Stricter standard: unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time or cumulative evidence-
· It is something to mention in ANY evidence question.
1. Liability insurance: basic rule: not admissible to show fault or ability to pay or to show the contrary.
1. P wants to show D has this insurance: why? That b/c of the insurance was careless, and the jury will know that.
2. ONLY admitted to: (in another aspect of the case)
1) prove ownership and control when in dispute
to impeach the witness: when it is relevant to show credibility of a witness when motive to exaggerate or lie. To construct to show that some witness has a stake in the outcome of the litigation. This will show the interest, bias, or motive for motive to lie.
