Term
|
Definition
| If the proposition itself is one provable in the case at bar, or if it in turn forms a further link in a chain of proof the final proposition of probative value in the case at bar, then the offered item of evidence has probative value in the case |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| is a term used in law to signify "tending to prove."[1] Probative evidence "seeks the truth". Generally in law, evidence that is not probative (prejudicial evidence), or doesn't prove anything, is inadmissible and the rules of evidence permit it to be excluded from a proceeding or stricken from the record "if objected to by opposing counsel |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Evidence is material if it bears on a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action
Substantive Law Question-> Look at the statute or code to help determine this fact |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Certain types of evidence will help build the wall. single bricks are of course not enough to convict his of murder, but it is relevant, not probative, but relevant.
It makes it more likely ( just another fact to add. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Relevant Evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact is of consequence to the determination of the action more probably or less probable than it would be without the evidence. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| All relevant evidence is admissible except as provided by the Constitution of the US, Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court, Pursuant to statutory authority Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a motion to exclude a certain piece of evidence, and here are the reasons why |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Although 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 considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
Item offered has to be material to the action |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court shall admit it upon or subject to the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition. |
|
|
Term
| “Unfair Prejudice Test” (Rule 403) |
|
Definition
Although 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 considerations of undue delay,
•waste of time, or
•needless presentation of cumulative evidence. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
invites the jury to make a determination on a false ground of the man’s previous acts
Admitting the evidence creates the possibility that the jury will see the evidence and make a determination on an improper ground, they will look at the crime as to the worth of the life of the victim.
Prejudice vs. Probative Value |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Questions of admissibility generally.
Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court, subject to the provisions of subdivision (b). In making its determination it is not bound by the rules of evidence except those with respect to privileges.
A preponderance standard is enough when dealing with evidence (subsidiary, fact-finding under 104(b)) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| more likely than not. → he level of proof required to prevail in most civil cases. The judge or jury must be persuaded that the facts are more probably one way (the plaintiff's way) than another (the defendant's). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| that the fact of an accuser’s flight, escape from custody, resistance to arrest, concealment, assumption of a false name and related conduct are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt and thus of guilt itself. |
|
|
Term
| Probability Evidence **(Needs Refining) |
|
Definition
| testimony greatly influenced the jury against the traditional means of deciding guilt or innocence, historically done by weighing the evidence (looking at credibility and probative value), not stats. Further, the testimony itself lacked foundation both in evidence and statistical theory primarily b/c the court found that by taking 6 individual factors of the D’s looks (factors the prosecution lumped together to get the 1 in 12 million stat) the chances of the D’s being the perpetrators was minimal. In addition, the court notes the prosecutor doing the stats is not trained in such mathematics and therefore his calculations should not be used to influence the jury. |
|
|
Term
| Effect of Stipulations ** Further Refining |
|
Definition
| Evidence relating to D’s arrest in Georgia will be in admissible, provided that D enter into a stipulation to the effect that he was in Georgia shortly after the robbery and while there used a false name→(Justified by rule 102, which contemplates a flexible scheme of discretionary judgments by trial courts designed to minimize the evidentiary costs of protecting parties from unfair prejudice)→ Elimination of all references to Georgia apprehension effectively removes the risk that the jury will perceive D as a national crime figure, but wll also afford the jury a concrete basis for inference that D left NY to escape capture from the bank robbery. |
|
|
Term
| Subsequent Remedial Measures - Rule 407 |
|
Definition
When, after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an event, measures are taken that, if taken previously, would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for a warning or instruction. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.
Bars Subsequent remedial measures→ TO PROVE→ Negligence, culpable conduct, product defect or the need for warning
• But Not to Prove , Other Things→ SUCH AS→ Ownership, control or feasibility, if controverted, or to impeach
The challenge is determining for what purpose the evidence is offered→ There is still a risk
•It can offered for anything other than the list given in the rule
o Negligence
o Culpable conduct
o A defect in a product’s design
o A need for warning or instruction
•It can be used for things like
o Impeaching a witness |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Evidence of the following 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 (2) accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise
of
(2) conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is
BARS→ COMPROMISE or An Attempt to Compromise a disputed claim and statements or conduct in negotiations→ to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim→ Not prove other things though, like Witness bias, lack of undue delay, or obstruction of a criminal investigation. |
|
|
Term
| Rule 409 - Payment of Medical and Similar Expenses |
|
Definition
| • 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. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not 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. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as
• proof of motive,
• opportunity,
• intent,
• preparation,
• plan,
• knowledge,
• identity, or
• absence of mistake or accident,
provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial. |
|
|
Term
| Reasons against propensity |
|
Definition
Evidence that a person has a particular propensity trait, generally is not admissible to show that person acted inconformity with that trait at a particular time.
• Said Evidence is irrelevant, Such evidence can cause unfair prejudice
o Two forms
• Give excessive weight to the vicious record of crime, thus exhibited and allow it to bear too strongly on the present charge
• Jury may take proof of character as justifying condemnation irrespective of guilty of the present charge. (Jury may punish simply for being a bad man.)
o Normally specific acts used to prove character are normally not the focus of the present case. Evidence about them could confuse and distract the jury. ( Can be a huge waste of time, with both sides trying to prove what did or did not happen relating to events that are not the focus of the trial) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| at the D’s request to deliver a limiting instruction to the jury, when evidence which is admissible for one purpose but not for another is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Character Evidence Generally→ Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:
o “In conformity with their character”
o Not admissible at all in Civil Cases
o Only admissible in Criminal cases under very specific rules
• Option belongs to a defendant to open up the issue of character evidence
D can offer evidence of good character.
• Sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt
Numerous opportunities to offer evidence of prior misconduct after D introduces said evidence.
• Prosecution must wait, they cannot do so with having D introduce evidence first.
D can also offer
• (a)(2)→ Evidence of a trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime offered by the accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness |
|
|
Term
| Rule 412 (Rape Shield Rule) |
|
Definition
Rape Shield Rule
• Cannot offer evidence of prior sexual conduct, or interests to suggest the behavior was consensual |
|
|
Term
| 405 - (reputation or Opinion) |
|
Definition
A→ (a) Reputation or opinion.
o In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct.
• (b) Specific instances of conduct.
o In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of that person's conduct.
In Massachusetts this standard is different, it can only be reputation evidence. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
o Except where character or trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge claim or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of that person’s conduct
• DO NOT STRAIN TO USE 405B→ IT ALMOST NEVER COMES UP→ DO NOT FORCE IT IN SOMEWHERE
• It only comes up here:
CHILD CUSTODY (DIVORCE) → CHARACTER OF THE PARENTS IS RELEVANT)
DEFMATION→ A SPECIFIC QUESTION OF CHARACTER IN EVERY SINGLE DEFEMATION CASE
ENTRAPMENT→ D CAN ASSERT DEFENSE OF ENTRAPMENT IF HE CAN SHOW THAT HE HAD NO PRE-DISPOSTION TO COMMIT THE CRIME, BUT SOMEHOW HE WAS LURED INTO IT BY SOME GOVERNMENT AGENTS (VERY HARD) |
|
|
Term
| Summary of analysis for every 404B case |
|
Definition
• Is the evidence capable of a propensity inference?
o Y or N
• Is there another purpose for which the evidence may be admissible?
o Others Box
• Is probative value outweighed by risk of prejudice?
o Y or N
• Will a limiting instruction cure risk of prejudice? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| One way to prove guilty when identify is in dispute is to show that the crime matches the defendants M.O. → Must match in idiosyncratic ways→ Could not be anyone else’s crime00< Similarities between the two crimes must be so distinctive that the inference that nobody else could have committed the crime overcomes jury temptation to engage in propensity reasoning pure and simple |
|
|
