Evidence Outline

 
Evidence Michaelmas Term 2014, Prof. John Scott
 
·        Rule 105: Limiting Instruction:   provides that evidence may be admissible for one purpose, but not for another
o   Judge gives this instruction the to the jury
·        401: Relevant Evidence
o   Evidence is relevant if:
§  It has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
§  The fact is of consequence in determining the action
o   402: all relevant evidence is admissible, except by the US Constitution, Evidence rules, or other rules prescribed by the SC. 
§  Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible
·        407: Subsequent Remedial Measures: an action taken after a harm or injury has occurred that in some measure attempts to rectify the cause of the harm or injury
o   Inadmissible to show
§  A party’s negligence
§  Culpable conduct
§  Defect in product
§  Defect in product’s design; or
§  Need for warning or instruction
o   May be implemented for reasons unrelated to fault
o   Exceptions: court may admit evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or is disputed—proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures
§  Availability of alternative: such measures may be used to rebut the Ds claim that there was no safer way to handlethe sitatuion
§  Control: if D claims that he did not won or control property involed in an accident, the fact that he subsequently repaired the property may be shown to rebut this assertion
·        Ex: P , a pedestrian, is injured when a car driven by D runs off the road and strikes P.  in the litigation, D defends on the ground that
o   The car had faulty brakes and the car  was not owned by D, as proved by the fact that it was registered to X, Ds brother
o   P may rpove that after the accident, D hired a gas station to repair the brakes—this is offered not to prove Ds culpability, but to prove that te person with real control (if not registered ownership) of the car was D, not X
§  Product liability: apply the no-subsequent-remedial-measures rul to product liability cases, ust as to negligence cases.  Not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product’s design, or a need for a wanring or instaruction
·        Ex: P, owner of a single engine plane made by D crashes in the plane when it runs out of fuel because water has gotten ito the fuel tanks.  P sues D on a PL defective deing theory.  Ps theory is that a defective esign of the fuel tanks allowed condensation to form insdie the tank.  In support of this theory, P offers evidence that shorty after this and two other similar accidents, D redesigned the fuel tanks to make such condensation less likely.
o   Evidence inadmissible
·        408: Compromise Offers and Payment of Medical Expenses
o   Prohibited uses: evidence is not admissible on behalf of any party, when offered to prove liability for invalidity of, or amount of a claim that was disputed as to validity or amount, or to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction
§  Furnishing or offering or promising to furnish or accepting or offering or promising to accept a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and
§  Conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations regarding the claim, except when offered in a criminal case and the negotiations related to a claim by a public office or agency in the exercise of regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority
o   Permitted uses: does not require exclusion if the e evidence is offered for purposes not prohibited by subdivision
§  Ex: permissible purposes include proving a witness’s
·         bias or prejudice
·        Negating convention of undue delay
·        Proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution
§  Evidence can be entered if the claim ins NOT disputed
·        Ex: an offer to pay off a debt for less than the amount is owed can be admissible
§  Exclusion of negotiations and settlement talks when the evidence is used to prove liability, it does not require exclusion when it proves other aspects
·        Evidence can be offered that talks about settlement but not the terms of the settlement, that could prejudice the opposing party and confuse the jury
·        409: evidence of furnishing or offering or promising  to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury
o   Keeps out offers to pay medical expenses by an individual to prove liability
o   Offer to pay medical expenses: promises to pay medical expenses occasioned by an injury are not admissible to prove liability for the injury
o   Does not cover collateral statements of fact: only offers of payment, not collateral admissions of fat are excluded.
o   Ex: D says to P, “I’m paying your medical expenses because if I hadn’t been drunk that night, I wouldn’t have hit you.” Ds statement, if offered by P, may  be edited and then admitted to show Ds drunkenness, but not that D paid the expenses
§  Collateral factual admission, even though it’s not barred by 409, will still have to avoid the hearsay rule in order to be admissible.  If P is trying to prove that D was drunk, the statement will be admissible, but only because it avoids being hearsay on account of the exclusion for statements by a party opponent
·        Liability insurance
o   Evidence that person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.
o   Doesn’t require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness
·        410: Pleas in criminal cases
o   Except as otherwise provide, evidence of the following is NOT, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the D who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussion
§  Plea of guilty which was later withdrawn
§  Plea of nolo contendere
§  Statements in plea proceedings
§  Statements in plea talks with prosecutors
o   Such a statement is admissible
§  In any proceeding wherein another statement made in the course of the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced and the statement ought in fairness be considered contemporaneously with it; or
§  In criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement if the statement was made by the D under oath, o the record and in the presence of counsel
Character Evidence
·         Rule 403: Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion or Waste of Time
o   Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by consid