This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Outlines Evidence Outline

Evidence Long Outline

Updated Evidence Long Outline Notes

Evidence Outline

Evidence Outline

Approximately 72 pages

...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Evidence Outline. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

EVIDENCE OUTLINE

Relevance 3

Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence 3

Probative v. Unfair Prejudice 4

Rule 403. Excluding Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time 4

Special Relevance Restrictions (Remedial Measures, Negotiations, Plea Deals, etc.) 6

Rule 407. Subsequent Remedial Measures 6

Rule 408. Compromise Offers and Negotiations 6

Rule 409. Offers to Pay Medical Expenses (or similar) 7

Rule 410. Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related. 7

Rule 411. Liability Insurance 8

Character Evidence 9

Rule 404. Character Evidence; Crimes or Acts 9

404(a)(1)Prohibited Uses. 9

404(a)(2)Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. 10

404(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts. 10

404(a)(3) Exceptions for a Witness. 11

Modus Operandi 11

Rule 105. Limiting Evidence That Is Not Admissible Against Other Parties or for Other Purposes 12

Rule 413. Similar Crimes in Sexual-Assault Cases 12

Rule 414. Similar Crimes in Child Molestation Cases 12

Rule 415. Similar Acts in Civil Cases Involving Sexual Assault or Child Molestation 12

Rule 405. Methods of Proving Character 14

Rule 406. Habit; Routine Practice 15

Impeachment 16

Rule 607. Who May Impeach a Witness 16

Rule 608. A Witness 16

Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction 18

Rape Shield 20

Rule 412. Sex-Offense Cases: The Victim 20

Rule 610. Religious Beliefs or Opinions 20

Probabilistic Evidence 24

Hearsay 26

Rule 801. Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay 26

Rule 802. The Rule Against Hearsay 27

Rule 613. Witness 30

Not Hearsay: 31

Opposing Party Statements 31

Coconspirator Statements 31

Hearsay Exceptions 32

Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable 32

Rule 803. Exceptions – declarant availability immaterial 33

Rule 806. Attacking and Supporting the Declarant 38

Rule 807. Residual Exception 38

Rule 602. Need for Personal Knowledge 38

Rule 612. Writing Used to Refresh a Witness 38

Confrontation Clause 39

Lay Opinions and Experts 43

Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses 44

Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses 44

Rule 703. Bases of an Expert 44

Rule 704. Opinion on an Ultimate Issue 44

Authentication 49

Rule 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence 49

Rule 902. Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating 50

Rule 1001. Definitions That Apply to This Article 52

Rule 1002. Requirement of the Original 52

Rule 1003. Admissibility of Duplicates 52

Rule 1004. Admissibility of Other Evidence of Content 52

Privileges 63

Rule 501. Privilege in General 63

1. Psychotherapist-Patient 64

2. Lawyer-Client 65

3. Marital Privileges 68

General

Evidence = rules about how the judicial system resolves disputes over questions of fact. Has implications for the juries.

Hard to determine what happened in the past with any certainty.

  • finders of fact find facts.

  • they could certainly be wrong.

  • because its hard to know what happened in the past when people dispute them.

  • rules in evidence are supposed to assist the fact finder in doing that as accurately as possible (either allowing evidence in or keeping evidence out).

  • might look at other rules in evidence that reflect other values or policy preferences.

  • most states have rules of evidence that conform or differ from the federal

  • MA has no rule of evidence, but rather relies on the common law.

Limiting Instructions?

105 – things can against some parties and not others

404 – character evidence only considered for the right things.

Rule 104. Preliminary Questions

(a) In General. The court must decide any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible. In so deciding, the court is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege.

(b) Relevance That Depends on a Fact. When the relevance of evidence depends on whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist. The court may admit the proposed evidence on the condition that the proof be introduced later.

Relevance

Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence

Rule 401: (a) evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. (b) that is a fact of consequence.

Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.

  • need only make one fact more probable; not the whole crime.

  • each piece is “a brink in a wall”

    • a brick is not a wall

United States v. James (p. 29)

  • Facts: James handed a gun to her daughter, who shot the victim. Ogden (victim); had just punched someone in the face. James says she was in fear. James said that Ogden had told her all these terrible things that he did. (p. 29). At trial the prosecution wanted to introduce court documents on the robbery in which Ogden had sat on a man and threatened to blind him. (p. 30).

  • Trial judge ruled that it was not admissible. Because James didn’t know about the court document; so it says nothing about her state of mind.

  • Reviewing court (9th Cir.) says it should have been admissible; necessary for her defense that she be found credible; and whether or not he really did it might be evidence of whether he believed her.

    • makes it more probable that she was scared of him?

    • realize that he probably wasn’t lying about the other crimes too

      • shows whether she would have believed him when he told her (b/c of his credibility) i.e., “the ring of truth”

      • establishing her credibility – about whether she was afraid? or about whether he actually told her these things. (i.e., she is not making it up that he told her these things).

  • fact must be of consequence to determining the action. 401(b).

    • Ogden’s conviction for the same thing makes it more likely that he actually told her that story, and that she believed him.

  • evidence must make a fact of consequence more probable.

Cox. v. State (p. 36)

  • Theory is that the murder was in retaliation for lawsuit against Hammer

  • Four days before the shooting there was a bail hearing for Hammer.

    • Why not let it in? Did not know if Cox knew about the hearing and the...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Evidence Outline.