Law Outlines Evidence Outlines
In-depth evidence outline gives the nuances of interpretations of the Federal Rules of Evidence in an easy-to-understand layout. Topics of this outline include: procedure and preliminary matters, character, impeachment, hearsay, the Confrontation Clause, expert witnesses, privileges, and California distinctions to the federal rules. This key gives each FRE number alongside each rule section, to allow you to get maximum points on your test. Also included: outline made in preparation for UBE/MBE ba...
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:
California Distinctions
California Distinctions
Pre Prop 8 (and current civil rules)
Specific Acts: CEC 787
No evidence of specific acts allowed in to attack/support credibility
Prior Convictions: CEC 788: W’s credibility may be attacked by evidence that she has been convicted of any felony, not just crimen falsi.
Beagle: CEC 352 (FRE 403) limits all past convictions. No different test for crimen falsi or old acts. Balancing factors include:
How prior convction reflects on honesty
The nearness/remoteness in time of prior conviction
Whether same/similar conduct is charged
Adverse effect of admission on D’s willingness to testify
Components of Prop 8
Victim’s Bill of Rights: Cal Const art I, Sec. 28
Right to Truth in Evidence: Sec 28(f)(2) (Specific Acts)
Victims of crime have right to truth-in-evidence – “relevant evidence shall not be excluded in any criminal proceeding…”
Use of Prior convictions: Sec 28(f)(4)
Any prior felony conviction of any person in any criminal proceeding, whether adult or juvenile, shall subsequently be used without limitation for purposes of impeachment or enhancement of sentence in any criminal proceeding. When a prior felony conviction is an element of any felony offense, it shall be proven to the trier of fact in open court.
Internal Inconsistency
28(f)(2) subjects relevant evidence to 352 balancing test
28(f)(4) puts not limitation on prior felony conviction use
Castro reconciles these differences:
Defense argument: Not applying 352 to prior convictions violates equal protection and due process
AG argument: this is what the voters wanted
Court: the “nothing in this section shall…” of (f)(2) trumps the “any”/”without limitation” of (f)(4). The purpose was to eliminate cases the Antick line of cases that applied 352 too rigidly to various cateogries of prior convictions, NOT TO ELIMINATE 352 BALANCING FROM PRIOR CONVICTIONS
14th amendment right to due process requires a rational connection b/w evidentiary fact (prior conviction) and inferred fact (witness’s truthfulness)
Conviction evinces “general readiness to do evil” ie, moral turpitude.
Rule: only felonies that are crimes of moral turpitude are admissible to impeach
Held: Possession of heroin for sale should be admitted to impeach...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Evidence Outlines.
In-depth evidence outline gives the nuances of interpretations of the Federal Rules of Evidence in an easy-to-understand layout. Topics of this outline include: procedure and preliminary matters, character, impeachment, hearsay, the Confrontation Clause, expert witnesses, privileges, and California distinctions to the federal rules. This key gives each FRE number alongside each rule section, to allow you to get maximum points on your test. Also included: outline made in preparation for UBE/MBE ba...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started