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

Law Outlines Evidence Outlines

Relevance And Conditional Relevance Outline

Updated Relevance And Conditional Relevance Notes

Evidence Outlines

Evidence

Approximately 49 pages

I handwrote my notes for the entire class and then used the notes to create this outline in preparation for the Final Exam....

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

RELEVANCE

Introduction

Determining relevancy is done as a threshold matter before a court considers any other evidentiary barriers to admission

2 Requirments:

Materiality (of consequence)=

It must be of consequence to the determination of the action
how you connect it to what that side has to prove

Probative=

ANY TENDENCY to make More or less probable
Very very low threshold
Must move things in a certain direction

Definition of Relevant Evidence

Rule 401. Definition of “Relevant Evidence”

“Relevant evidence means evidence giving ANY tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be w/o the evidence”

Embodies the rule that evidence msut bear upon a “fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action”
Evidence must be probative, ie, have a tendency to make a the existence of a fact more or less probable than it would be w/o the evidence
ANY increase or decrease in the probability of a fact of consequence will suffice, no matter how small
To have probative value, the evidence need not prove a fact by itself, it can be combined w/ other evidence to prove or disprove a fact

Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible

“All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution, an Act of Congress, these rules, or other Supreme Court rules.”

Evidence which isn’t relevant isn’t admissible

Exclusion of Relevant Evidence

Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

“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.”

Unfair prejudice- the most frequently used
The prejudice must be “unfair”, it must distort the fact finding function of the trial by allowing the jury to draw improper inferences.
Rule is written in favor of admissibility
It doesn’t matter how many atoms you have, the prejudice must SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGH the probative value
Conducting the balancing test:
1st : judge determines if the evidence has probative value under Rule 401. If so is presumptively admissible under Rule 402
2nd: judge will estimate the strength of the probative value by looking at the extent to which the evidence will sway the jury in the proponents favor on a contested issue of fact, as well as the extent to which the facts are established by other evidence, stipulation, or inference
3rd: judge then determines the strength of any counterweights under Rule 403 & decides if they “substantially” outweigh the probative value of the evidence.
Substantially- generally means that in a close case where prob value & counter factors are close, the judge should admit the evidence.

Old Chief v. United States

Old chief charges w/ 922(g)(1) which prohibited possession of a fire arm by anyone w/ a PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION (this is what prosecution needed to prove)
Gov wanted to show whole arrest records but defendant wanted to stipulate to the prior felony conviction
So using 401/402 and then 403 judge determines gov shld just use stipulation
401/402:GOV

Each case side gets to choose own strategy

Just cause have 2 pieces of evidence showing the same point doesn’t make one piece irrelevant

Just cause a fact is not in dispute doesn’t make evidence about it irrelevant

MUST evaluate each piece of evidence in isolation not in combo w/other evidence

Concern w/ parties being able tell story no in pure logic

403: Defense

Here weigh ALL the evidence avail for risk & see which may work the same w/less 403 risk.

Here the stipulation was okay given the amount of prejudice of that having the whole arrest record would mean

DON’T ASK WHAT THE PARTICULAR PIECE OF EVIDENCE ADDS, INSTEAD ASK IF THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED WOULD MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO THE FACT FINDER WHO HAD NOT OTHER EVIDENCE

CONDITIONAL RELEVANCE

Judicial Determination of Preliminary Questions

Rule 104. Preliminary Questions

104(a). 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, the court is not bound by the rules of evidence except those w/r/t privilege.
Under rule 104(a) , the trial judge determines the admissibility of proposed evidence except for matters involving conditional relevancy
A judges findings as to these prelim questions must be made by a preponderance of the evidence in civ and crim cases.

Judicial Determination of Conditional Relevancy

Rule 104(b) Relevancy Conditioned on Fact

When the relevancy of evidence depends upon 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

Both the judge and jury share the responsibility of determining admissibility here
Ex. relevancy of a contract may depend upon whether the d’s agent who signed the contract had authority to do so…
Judges role is to decide if a reasonable juror could find the contested fact to be true, and if so, the judge admits the evidence, and the jury is instructed to disregard it if they find the contested fact doesn’t exist
But if a reasonable jury could only find one way on an issue, the judge will make a factual determination that way instead of giving it to the jury
Ask: Is it real? Is it really important (the intermediate fact to prove)
Conditional Relevance question exists when it is clear there is a missing step, there is a clear disconnect
Huddleston v. United States

Material Issue at trial was if the defendant knew the tapes he sold were stolen

Dist. ct. allowed gov to give...

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