Evidence

Multistate
Flash Cards
REED’S Multistate Bar
Review, Inc.
414 N. Orleans, Suite 602
Chicago, Illinois 60610
(800) 852-3926
www.PassYourBar.com
Copyright by Reed’s Multistate Bar Review, Inc.,
a.k.a. PassYourBar.com. All rights reserved. No part
of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any
information storage and retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in
the United States of America.
Call 1(800)852-3926,
see www.PassYourBar.com or write to:
National Office
414 N. Orleans, Suite 602
Chicago, Illinois 60610
EVIDENCE 1
Presentation of Evidence
Under the FRE, what are the two elements

of testimonial competence?
www.PassYourBar.com
1
The witness must have personal knowledge of
the matter on which he will testify (FRE 602),
and he must declare that he will testify truthfully,
by oath or affirmation. FRE 603. Note that there
are no mental requirements FOR competency.
Under the FRE note further that the judge, not
the jury, determines witness competence.
Test Tip: See if the witness has MOCK (Memory;
Observance; Competence; Knowledge).
EVIDENCE 2
If evidence is admissible for one purpose,

is it admissible for any purpose?
www.PassYourBar.com
2
No.
According to the doctrine of "limited
admissibility," evidence can be admitted
for one purpose without being admissible
for some other purpose (e.g., insurance to
show ownership but not the ability to pay).
EVIDENCE 3
What is the "Doctrine of Limited

Admissibility"?
www.PassYourBar.com
3
It holds that evidence may be admissible
for one purpose and against one party, but
not admissible for some other purpose or
against some other party. EXAMPLE:
Prior bad acts - admissible to prove a
common plan, but not to prove "criminal
character" – sometimes referred to as
propensity evidence.
EVIDENCE 4
What is "judicial notice"?
www.PassYourBar.com
4
It is the court's recognition of a fact as true
without requiring formal presentation of
evidence. Such facts include notorious
facts - subject to common knowledge in
the community - and manifest
facts - capable of positive verification
through readily accessible, undoubtedly
accurate sources.
FRE 201(b).
EVIDENCE 5
At what stage of the trial must a judge take

judicial notice of a fact, if he's going to do
so at all?
www.PassYourBar.com
5
Trick question. "Judicial notice may be
taken at any stage of the proceeding,"
under FRE 201(f). In fact, judicial notice
may first be taken at the appeals court
level. Note, however, that an appeals
court must take judicial notice of any fact
the trial court properly noticed, or that the
trial court was obliged to notice.
EVIDENCE 6
What kinds of laws (e.g., federal, state,

municipal, foreign) are generally subject to
mandatory judicial notice?
www.PassYourBar.com
6
For most courts, federal and state laws (e.g.,
constitutions, treaties, public acts of Congress,
the state's common law and federal case law),
official regulations (e.g., codes and rules of the
federal and state governments, but not state
agency management and organization rules).
Most courts may take judicial notice of municipal
codes, Congressional resolutions, and foreign
countries' laws, but the court need not do so.
N.B.: If the law of a foreign state is to govern a
transaction, the court cannot take judicial notice
of it; it must be pleaded and proven as an issue
of fact.
EVIDENCE 7
What's the difference between the burden

of persuasion, and the burden of going
forward (or the burden of production)?
www.PassYourBar.com
7
The burden of persuasion refers to the party's
duty to produce sufficient evidence to convince
the trier of fact that he should prevail. The
burden of persuasion does not shift throughout
the trial. Thus, in a negligence suit, plaintiff must
prove duty, breach, causation, and damages;
defendant, if he so chooses, must prove a
defense, like assumption of the risk or
contributory negligence. The burden of going
forward, on the other hand, requires that a party
introduce enough evidence on an issue such
that a reasonable jury could infer the fact
alleged. It shifts from plaintiff to defendant.
EVIDENCE 8
What's the difference between the burden

of persuasion and the burden of going
forward?
www.PassYourBar.com
8
For example, in a negligence suit, plaintiff must produce
sufficient evidence on duty, breach, causation, and
damages such that a reasonable jury could infer each
element. This is plaintiff's "prima facie" case. If plaintiff
doesn't meet this burden, a verdict will be directed
against him. If he does, defendant has the burden of
going forward - he can otter evidence to increase the
possibility that the jury will find plaintiff has not mot the
burden of persuasion. If defendant introduces no
evidence, this, of course, decreases the likelihood he'll
win (although jury still needn't necessarily find for
plaintiff, if it doesn't believe plaintiff has mot the burden of
persuasion on some issue). Conversely, if defendant
wants to establish assumption of the risk, for instance, it
has the burden of persuasion, and the initial burden of
going forward.
EVIDENCE 9
What is the burden of persuasion in an

ordinary civil case?
www.PassYourBar.com
9
The trier of fact must be persuaded of the truth of
disputed facts by a "preponderance of the evidence."
Definitions of "preponderance of the evidence" vary, but,
in general, a "Preponderance" exists when all the
evidence of a fact's existence is more convincing to the
trier of fact than the opposing evidence. COMPARE:
Certain civil cases require a higher standard - proof by
"clear and convincing evidence." Such civil suits include
those for fraud, undue influence, oral contracts to make a
will, and for the specific performance of an oral contract.
This standard is also not easy to define, but in general it
means "highly probable."
COMPARE: Burden of persuasion in a criminal
case - prosecutor must prove every element of the crime
to convince the jury of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."
EVIDENCE 10
Does a presumption shift the burden of

production?
www.PassYourBar.com
10
Yes. The party adversely affected by the
presumption has the burden of "going
forward" to rebut the presumption.
Note that a presumption does not shift the
burden of persuasion (e.g., every element
"beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal
case), which remains the same throughout
the trial.
EVIDENCE 11
Does a presumption have any effect once

it has been rebutted?
www.PassYourBar.com
11
No, according to the Federal Rules, Rule 301,
and most courts: once the other party has
produced "substantial" evidence to rebut a
presumption, the presumption loses effect
(and the judge will not instruct the jury upon it).
However, the inference created by the rebutted
presumption will remain - in other words, the jury
can still draw conclusions from the facts
presented to establish the presumption.
EVIDENCE 12
What is the common law "Dead Man's

Rule"?
www.PassYourBar.com
12
It is a law which exists in some form in most
states, prohibiting testimony concerning a
transaction between a witness with an interest in
the outcome and a now-deceased person, in
cases pressed or defended by the decedent's
executor. The laws are founded on the theory
that such one-sided testimony is unreliable,
since the living person can lie without fear of
contradiction.
Therefore it is always the wrong answer on a
Multistate Bar Exam question.
EVIDENCE 13
What is a "leading question"?
www.PassYourBar.com
13
It is a question which would lead an

average person to believe that the
questioner desires one answer over
another.
EXAMPLE: "Didn't you see the red light?"
EVIDENCE 14
Under the FRE, when is the use of

"leading questions" permissible?
www.PassYourBar.com
14
Under FRE 611(c):
1. On cross-examination; OR
on direct examination, IF
2. The witness is hostile, unwilling or biased;
3. The witness is a child, or an adult with
difficulty communicating;
4. The witness's recollection is exhausted
5. The questioning concerns undisputed
preliminary matters.
EVIDENCE 15
If a witness has been impeached on cross-

examination, in what two ways can he be
rehabilitated" on redirect?
www.PassYourBar.com
15
Explanation of responses on
cross-examination; and testimony of other
witnesses on reputation for truthfulness (if
witness's truthfulness has been attacked).
NOTE: Under limited circumstances, prior
consistent statements can be used to
rehabilitate, under FRE 801(d)(1)(b). To defeat
a charge of bias or recent fabrication only, prior
consistent statements made before the alleged
bias or fabrication will be admitted.
NOTE: Once bias has been established, a
witness can never be rehabilitated.
EVIDENCE 16
What types of materials may be used to

refresh a witness's memory?
www.PassYourBar.com
16
There's no limitation - anything can be used,
including leading questions, documents, and
objects - although the refreshing item cannot be
used unless and until the witness's present
memory is exhausted. The only requirement is
that the "refreshing object" must be used to
refresh the memory, not just to show the jury the
item.
Note that the opposing counsel must have an
opportunity to see the refreshing item before it's
used, and the item can be marked as an exhibit
under FRE 612.
EVIDENCE 17
Under the Federal Rules, may a party

impeach his own witness?
www.PassYourBar.com
17
Yes, according to FRE 607.
COMMON LAW RULE: A party cannot impeach
his own witness - but this rule is fraught with
exceptions, including permissible impeachment
when the witness is the adverse party (or
someone associated with the adverse party, e.g.,
spouse, employee), a witness who must be
called by law (e.g., an attesting witness in a will
case), or the party is "surprised" by harmful
testimony.
EVIDENCE 18
What is "intrinsic impeachment"?
www.PassYourBar.com
18
Testimony that discredits the witness,

elicited solely from the witness himself
on cross – examination.
COMPARE: "Extrinsic impeachment,"
which is discrediting testimony from any
other source.
EVIDENCE 19
There are five basic types of questions that

can be used to elicit intrinsic impeachment
from a witness. What are they?
www.PassYourBar.com
19
Questions seeking to show:
1. Bias or interest;
2. Prior inconsistent statements ("laying a foundation"
is not required under the FRE; it is required at common
law);
3. Prior convictions (majority rule, only felonies or
misdemeanors involving dishonesty; under FRE,
misdemeanors involving dishonesty and any felony
under Rule 609(a), not more than ten years old);
4. Bad character for honesty (including unconvicted bad
acts);
5. Sensory deficiencies (e.g., eyesight, memory, mental
disability).
EVIDENCE 20
What are the primary methods of extrinsic

impeachment?
www.PassYourBar.com
20
1. Bias;
2. Contradicting facts;
3. Inconsistent Statements (require a foundation);
4. Defects in perception, memory, or capacity;
5. Convictions (all felonies, and misdemeanors
involving dishonesty, under FRE; any crime involving
dishonesty, under majority rule);
6. Bad character for truthfulness (via reputation or
opinion testimony, under FRE. FRE 608(a).
MNEMONIC; COD BITCH (Convictions; Defects; Bias;
Inconsistencies; Truthfulness; Contradictions)
EVIDENCE 21
What types of prior criminal convictions are

admissible for impeachment purposes
under the FRE?
www.PassYourBar.com
21
Under FRE 609(a):
1. Any felony (crime punishable by at least one year in
prison); or
2. Any crime, felony or misdemeanor, involving dishonesty
or false statement.
NOTE: Juvenile convictions, or very old convictions, are generally
inadmissible for impeachment.
NOTE: In crimes involving dishonesty, the judge must admit the
conviction to impeach, if offered; if the crime doesn't involve
dishonesty, admission is discretionary. Notes to Rule 609(a).
NOTE: The use of prior convictions to impeach is not subject to the
"collateral matter" rule.
NOTE: In criminal cases, evidence of witness's prior felonies cannot
be admitted if the defendant (not the witness) is prejudiced thereby.
COMMON LAW RULE: States vary, but most allow any felony
conviction, with a trend towards allowing only crimes reflecting on
veracity, whether felony or misdemeanor.
EVIDENCE 22
Can unconvicted bad conduct ever be

used to impeach a witness?
www.PassYourBar.com
22
Yes: but only if:
1. Such conduct is probative of witness’s
truthfulness; and
2. Evidence is from witness’s own mouth on
cross examination (“intrinsic”). Admission of such
evidence is within the judge’s discretion, and the
questioning must be carried out in good faith as
to a reasonable basis for believing witness has
undertaken such conduct (thus, witness could
not be impeached with an act for which he’d
been tried and acquitted.)
EVIDENCE 23
What is the "collateral matter" rule?
www.PassYourBar.com
23
"Extrinsic" evidence (not from the witness's
own mouth) is "collateral" and cannot be
admitted if it is relevant only to discredit a
witness. If the evidence also proves or
disproves a substantive issue, the evidence
is admissible. FRE 403.
EXCEPTIONS: There are several, including
where the matter sought to be proven is
considered "material," i.e., showing witness bias,
in which case extrinsic evidence is allowed even
if it proves nothing else except bias.
EVIDENCE 24
How does the FRE deal with the use of old

convictions to impeach?
www.PassYourBar.com
24
Under FRE 609(b), “old convictions” (generally more than ten years
old) are not permissible unless.
1. The court determines in the interest of justice that the probative
value of the conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.
FRE 609(b); AND
2. The Proponent give the adverse party sufficient advance notice
that it will use the conviction to impeach, so the adverse party can
contest its use.
NOTE: "Old convictions" include those where "a period of more than
ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the
release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that
conviction, whichever is the later date." FRE 609(b)
RATIONALE: Old convictions are not probative of witness's current
veracity.
COMMON LAW RULE: Judge has discretion as to whether a remote
con-viction is relevant to current credibility.
EVIDENCE 25
Can reputation evidence be used to

impeach a witness's honesty?
www.PassYourBar.com
25
Yes, both at common law and under the
FRE (Rule 608(a)). Usually, in order to
impeach a witness's veracity with
reputation evidence, other witnesses
will be called to testify about the
witness's reputation for truth and
veracity in his community. Note that
they need not know him personally to
testify to his reputation.
EVIDENCE 26
Is extrinsic evidence relevant to bias

covered by the "collateral matter" rule (i.e.,
must it address a material issue in the
case)?
www.PassYourBar.com
26
No - Bias is never considered "collateral,"

so extrinsic evidence - i.e., anything other
than the witness's own testimony - may be
used to prove it.
EVIDENCE 27
As a general rule, can lay witnesses offer

opinion testimony?
www.PassYourBar.com
27
No, but "general" is the operative word here - the
exceptions to this rule are legion. For instance, lay
witnesses can testify to their own sense impressions
based on common everyday knowledge, such as a
person's age, sobriety, or emotional state; the
approximate speed of moving vehicles, and the like.
Thus, a lay witness can testify "He looked sick," "He
looked crazy" or "He was going too fast," whereas a lay
witness would not be competent to testify "He had beri-
beri," "He was suffering from manic-depressive
syndrome with schizophrenic tendencies" or "He was
going 67 m.p.h." since these latter statements are not the
subject of common, everyday knowledge.
EVIDENCE 28
In what situations may lay witnesses offer

opinion testimony?
www.PassYourBar.com
28
Generally, under FRE 701, where the opinion testimony is helpful
to understanding witness's testimony or determining a fact in
issue, and are rationally based on witness's first-hand
knowledge, such as:
1. Physical appearance of a person (weight, age, height,
drunkenness, strength, etc.);
2. Recognition (looks, voice, handwriting);
3. Emotional state of another (angry, happy, etc.);
4. Speed, distance, temperature (within everyday experience
only);
5. Value of one's own goods or services;
6. Sanity of another;
7. Odor.
MNEMONIC: DOVeR SEATS (Distance; Odor; Value; Recognition;

Speed; Emotion; Appearance; Temperature; Sanity)
EVIDENCE 29
Under the FRE, under what circumstances

will expert testimony be considered
necessary?
www.PassYourBar.com
29
Where the court determines that "scientific,
technical, or other specialized knowledge
will assist the trier of fact to understand the
evidence or to determine a fact in issue."
FRE 702.
COMMON LAW RULE: Strict necessity is
required: expert testimony is admissible
only as to matters beyond common
experience and knowledge.
EVIDENCE 30
In forming his opinion, may an expert rely

on inadmissible evidence?
www.PassYourBar.com
30
Yes, It's only necessary that the expert rely on those
things a reasonable expert in the field normally relies on.
FRE 703. Thus, an expert may rely on hearsay and
opinion which could not, in and of themselves, be
admitted into evidence directly.
EXAMPLE: A physician bases his opinion on a victim's
diagnosis, in part, on statements made by relatives of the
victim. Although the relatives' statements themselves
are inadmissible hearsay, a physician can rely on them in
forming an opinion for use in expert testimony, because
they are facts physicians normally would rely on for
diagnosis purposes.
EVIDENCE 1
Relevancy
What is "logical relevancy"?
www.PassYourBar.com
1
Evidence is "logically relevant" if it tends to
prove or disprove a material fact. FRE 401. If
it does so, it's relevant, and might be admissible
(if it meets other evidence requirements); if it
doesn't, it's inadmissible.
NOTE: Another aspect to relevance is "legal
relevance," which requires that the probative
value of the evidence substantially outweighs its
prejudicial impact. A piece of evidence must be
both logically and legally relevant to be
admissible.
EVIDENCE 2
Relevancy
What is the balancing test used to

determine if a piece of evidence is "legally
relevant"?
www.PassYourBar.com
2
Is the probative value of the evidence
substantially outweighed by the
probability of undue prejudice?
If so, the court will exclude the
evidence. FRE 403.
NOTE: This happens most frequently with
"inflammatory" evidence in criminal
cases - graphic and gruesome photos,
body parts, and the like.
EVIDENCE 3
Relevancy
If a piece of evidence is relevant, is it

admissible?
www.PassYourBar.com
3
No - evidence must be relevant and clear other
obstacles (hearsay, privilege, etc.) to be
admissible. If it is a writing, it must overcome
HARB:
Hearsay objections;
Authentication problem;
Relevancy issues; and
Best evidence objections.
Note, however, that the reverse is true - if a
piece of evidence is irrelevant, it's
inadmissible.
EVIDENCE 4
Relevancy
Why is character evidence generally

inadmissible to prove a person acted in
conformity with his character on a given
occasion?
www.PassYourBar.com
4
Because if a person's character is shown
through evidence the jury is likely to be
unduly influenced by its reaction toward
the person, not by his actions under the
circumstances in question.
NOTE: Character evidence is evidence of
how a person generally behaves, or
behaved on some other occasion(s),
offered to prove how he acted on the
occasion in question.
EVIDENCE 5
Relevancy
What are the three types of character

evidence?
www.PassYourBar.com
5
1. Specific acts; 2. Opinion; 3. Reputation.
IMPORTANCE OF DISTINCTION:
The type(s) of character evidence admissible in a given
instance depend on the purpose for which the evidence
is offered. For instance, whenever character evidence is
admissible, reputation or opinion evidence can be used,
under the FRE; specific acts can only be used when the
character of a person is an essential element of a
charge, claim, or defense - or to impeach a reputation
witness (by testing his competence), or to prove notice
(e.g., for negligent entrustment and self-defense).
However, to prove habit, only evidence of specific acts
can be used - not reputation or opinion.
EVIDENCE 6
Relevancy
Character evidence is generally not

admissible to prove conduct. However,
when character is "in issue," such
evidence is admissible. When is character
"in issue"?
www.PassYourBar.com
6
When the issue involves:
1. Testamentary capacity;
2. Sanity;
3. Child custody (to prove character of parents);
4. Defamation (to prove or disprove truth or damages);
5. Entrapment (to prove or disprove that defendant was
predisposed to commit the crime);
6. Notice (i.e., knowledge of entrustee's character in negligent
entrustment; victim's knowledge of attacker's violent
nature where victim claims self defense);
7. Impeaching a reputation witness (e.g., "Floyd is known as a
good boy," can be impeached with "Did you know Floyd
was convicted of armed robbery?").
MNEMONIC: CHILD DENTIST (Child custody; Defamation;

Entrapment; Notice; Impeach reputation witness; Sanity;
Testamentary)
EVIDENCE 7
Relevancy
What is "habit" evidence?
www.PassYourBar.com
7
It is evidence describing a person's regular response
to a certain set of circumstances.
EXAMPLE: Person always takes the same route to work.
ADMISSIBILITY UNDER FRE: Freely admissible under
FRE 406 to prove a person acted in conformity with
his habit on a certain occasion.
ADMISSIBILITY AT COMMON LAW: Generally either
inadmissible or only admissible in the absence of
eyewitnesses.
NOTE: Where habit is being proven, only character
evidence in the form of specific acts can be used - not
reputation or opinion.
EVIDENCE 8
Relevancy
In a criminal case, under what

circumstances will evidence of other
specific instances of misconduct be
admissible under the FRE?
www.PassYourBar.com
8
Where they have independent relevance,
under FRE 404(b):
1. Motive;
2. Intent;
3. Mistake, absence of;
4. Identity
5. Common plan or scheme
MNEMONIC: MIMIC
NOTE: The evidence must still be logically
relevant.
EVIDENCE 9
Relevancy
What is the "Mercy Rule" in relation to

character evidence?
www.PassYourBar.com
9
It holds that, in a criminal case only, the
defendant may offer pertinent character
evidence (in the form of reputation or opinion
only, not specific acts), to prove his innocence.
FRE 404(a)(1).
Note that, however, once defendant has done
so, prosecutor can rebut defendant's evidence
with reputation and opinion testimony as to
defendant's bad character.
RELATED ISSUE: If defendant doesn't offer
character evidence, i.e., “opens the door,” then
the prosecutor cannot do so either.
EVIDENCE 10
Relevancy
In a criminal case, since the state cannot

initiate evidence of the defendant's bad
character, is defendant prohibited from
introducing evidence of his own good
character?
www.PassYourBar.com
10
No - the defendant can introduce evidence of his own
good character to show he did not commit the crime
in question. This is the "Mercy Rule." FRE 404(a)(1).
TYPES ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE FRE: Reputation and
opinion.
TYPES ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE COMMON LAW:
Reputation only.
NOTE: Once defendant has introduced character
evidence, prosecutor can rebut - with reputation and
opinion only, not specific acts. However, under FRE 405,
the prosecutor can ask defendant’s character witness
whether he knows of specific acts of misconduct by
asking “Have you heard…?” or “Do you know…?” type
questions.
EVIDENCE 11
Relevancy
Under what circumstances can a criminal

defendant introduce character evidence of
his victim?
www.PassYourBar.com
11
Defendant can offer reputation and opinion evidence of victim's

character where, if victim acted in conformity with his
character, the conduct would tend to prove the defendant's
innocence. FRE 404(a)(2).
EXAMPLE: In a murder trial, defendant could offer reputation or
opinion evidence of victim's violent character to prove the victim was
the aggressor. However, prosecutor could then rebut with evidence
of the victim's peacefulness with reputation or opinion evidence.
N.B. This rule does not extend to rape cases, where defendant
cannot show the victim's bad character through reputation or opinion
evidence to prove consent or to impeach; specific acts may be
proven under very limited circumstances, under FRE 412.
EVIDENCE 12
Relevancy
Could circumstantial evidence alone be

sufficient to justify a verdict in a civil or
criminal case?
www.PassYourBar.com
12
In a word - yes.
NOTE: Circumstantial evidence (as
opposed to direct evidence) requires that
inferences be made.
EVIDENCE 13
Relevancy
What's the difference between "real

evidence" and "demonstrative evidence"?
www.PassYourBar.com
13
Real evidence has probative value
itself, e.g., the cleaver used as a murder
weapon.
Demonstrative evidence is an aid to
help the jury understand evidence, e.g.,
a cleaver similar to the one used as a
murder weapon.
Note: that both real and demonstrative
evidence can also be hearsay, and are
subject to hearsay rules.
EVIDENCE 1
Privileges/Policy Exclusions
Under what general circumstances will a

given piece of evidence be subject to a
"privilege"?
www.PassYourBar.com
1
1. Appropriate relationship between communicants (e.g.,

attorney/client, physician/patient);
2. Relationship existed at time of communication;
3. Appropriate person is claiming the privilege (i.e., client or
patient holds privilege, not attorney or doctor);
4. There was a communication, i.e., verbal or communicative act;
5. The communication was made in confidence (presence of third
parties normally destroys privilege);
6. Privilege has not been waived (via contract or in court);
7. There is no reason privilege should not control (e.g., legal
advice sought for future wrongdoing; medical advice not in course of
treatment).
NOTE: Judge determines the preliminary issue of whether the
privilege exists or not.
EVIDENCE 2
What testimonial privileges are available

under the FRE?
www.PassYourBar.com
2
There aren't any privileges under the FRE.
However, FRE 501 provides that common
law rules on witness privilege will control,
as federal courts in-terpret them; and, in
civil proceedings, with respect to an
element of a claim or defense for which
state law supplies the rule of decision, the
privilege of a witness, person, government,
state or political subdivision thereof is to be
determined in accordance with state law.
EVIDENCE 3
Does the physician-patient privilege expire

along with the patient?
www.PassYourBar.com
3
No - the privilege belongs to the patient's
estate after he dies.
Note, however, that while the patient is alive, the
privilege belongs only to the patient - and he
may decide to claim or waive the privilege.
N.B.: The physician-patient privilege is very
limited, in states which recognize it, applying
primarily to domestic relations cases. It is
inapplicable, among other times, in personal
injury cases and criminal proceedings.
EVIDENCE 4
There are two types of husband-wife

privilege in federal court. What are they?
www.PassYourBar.com
4
1. The spousal privilege (incompetency to testify).
Federal courts: Criminal cases - WITNESS SPOUSE
HOLDS THE PRIVILEGE - a witness/spouse has the
choice of testifying, without the consent of the
accused/spouse, except as to confidential
communications (on which the accused/spouse can
forbid testimony).
2. Privilege of marital communications - A witness
may not testify as to matters communicated in
confidence during the marriage, if the presenter former
spouse objects. Note that both spouses hold the
privilege, and either one can assert the privilege against
the other, or a third party (privilege doesn't, however,
apply to actions between the spouses).
EVIDENCE 5
Under the FRE, are admissions in

conjunction with offers to settle treated the
same as admissions in conjunction with
offers to pay medical bills?
www.PassYourBar.com
5
No. Admissions in conjunction with
settlement offers are inadmissible to prove
negligence, liability, or a claim's value: "I'm
sorry - I wasn't watching. It's my fault, I'll pay
you $1000 to settle." The entire statement is
inadmissible under Rule 408.
However, admissions in conjunction with an
offer to pay medical bills (or actual payment
of them) are admissible: "I'm sorry - I wasn't
watching. It's my fault. I'll pay your medical
bills." Admission is admissible (but offer itself
and actual payment is not, under FRE 409).
EVIDENCE 6
Under the FRE, are admissions in

conjunction with offers to settle treated the
same as admissions in conjunction with
offers to pay medical bills?
www.PassYourBar.com
6
COMMON LAW RULE: All types of statements with regard to paying
medical bills - admissions, offers to pay, and payment - are
admissible. With settlements, admissions made in conjunction with
the settlement are admissible; the offer to settle and the actual
settlement are excluded.
FRE C/L
Settlements - Admissions Excl. Adm.
Offer + Pmt. Excl. Excl.
Medical Bills – Admission Adm. Adm.
Offer + Pmt. Excl. Adm.
So - if you're reduced to guessing because you can't remember the
rules - guess to exclude under the FRE, and guess to admit under
the common law.
MENTAL PICTURE FOR FRE - Imagine a primitive settlement, like
Jamestown, with a big, red plastic "X" over it. This will remind you
that settlements are "X-cluded" (excluded).
EVIDENCE 7
Can defendant's liability insurance be

admitted into evidence on the issue of
negligence or wrongdoing?
www.PassYourBar.com
7
No.
However, any other logically relevant issue
may be proven via liability insurance,
according to FRE 411, including control or
ownership, agency, and witness bias. (It can
also be brought up during voir dire to determine
if a prospective juror has an interest in an
insurance company, if an insurance company is
a party in interest. This is done to determine
bias.)
RATIONALE: The jury would otherwise be likely
to decide the case on improper grounds, e.g.,
ability to pay.
EVIDENCE 1
Writings/Recordings/Photographs
What is the "Best Evidence Rule"?
www.PassYourBar.com
1
When a party wants to prove the material terms of a
writing, the "original writing" (which includes
photocopies and carbons) must be produced.
Copies and oral testimony concerning the writing's
contents are only permissible on a showing of the
original's unavailability not the result of proponent's
serious misconduct. FRE 1002.
RATIONALE: Errors or gaps in memory, as well as fraud,
can be avoided by allowing the trier of fact to see the
writing itself, if it's available.
NOTE: The judge decides the threshold issue of whether
the document is unavailable.
NOTE: The Best Evidence Rule can be waived if the
opposing party does not timely object to admission of the
secondary evidence.
EVIDENCE 2
WHEN THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE

APPLIES
www.PassYourBar.com
2
Only consider the Best Evidence Rule when:
1. The terms of a writing are being proven, or
2. Witness is testifying relying on a writing.
Note that, if facts are not legally operative (e.g.,
words of will, contract, or defamation), the writing
must still satisfy the hearsay rule.
NOTE: Even if the witness is relying on a writing,
it won't be covered by the Best Evidence Rule if
it involves a "collateral matter" - that is,
something not closely related to a controlling
issue. FRE 1004(4).
EVIDENCE 3
When a document is covered by the "Best

Evidence Rule," if the original is
unavailable, is any evidence on the
contents of the writing barred?
www.PassYourBar.com
3
No, it's just that the original is preferable. If the
original cannot be produced (it was lost or
destroyed, or otherwise legally unavailable),
secondary evidence - copies, notes, or oral
testimony will be admissible. FRE 1004.
COMMON LAW RULE: Although rejected by
many states, the common law rule observed
"degrees" of secondary evidence, such that if the
original was unavailable, the nonexistence of
written copies had to be proven before oral
testimony would be allowed.
EVIDENCE 4
What is the "Parol Evidence Rule"?
www.PassYourBar.com
4
The Parol Evidence Rule is a rule of substantive contract
law, providing that Where there exists an
unambiguous written agreement intended by the
parties to embody the full and final expression of
their agreement, NO prior agreements, oral OR
written, or contemporaneous oral agreements, will be
admissible to contradict or supplement the terms of
the writing.
POLICY: To avoid perjured testimony, and give a clear
basis on which to base a judgment.
N.B.: Prior written agreements are all covered, as well
as oral ones!
Exceptions to admissibility are DAM FOIL (Duress;
Ambiguity; Mistake; Fraud; Oral agreement precedent;
Illegality; Lack of capacity).
EVIDENCE 5
Must a writing be authenticated at trial, or

can it be authenticated in some other way?
www.PassYourBar.com
5
Pretrial authentication is permissible, via,

for instance, depositions, stipulations, and
requests for admission of genuineness
EVIDENCE 6
Are newspapers self-authenticating?
www.PassYourBar.com
6
Yes, under FRE 902(6).

MNEMONIC of self-authenticating
documents under the FRE: CONTAC
(Commercial paper; Official publications;
Newspapers and periodicals; Trade
inscriptions; Acknowledged documents;
Certified copies of public documents).
EVIDENCE 7
Is expert testimony necessary to identify

handwriting as being that of a particular
person?
www.PassYourBar.com
7
No - Anyone with personal knowledge of an
individual's handwriting is qualified to testify as to
its authenticity, as long as the familiarity was not
acquired for purposes of the litigation. FRE
901(b)(2). Familiarity with voice recordings, on
the other hand, can be sought for purposes of
litigation.
NOTE: An expert, or the trier of fact, can identify
handwriting by merely comparing the sample in
question with an authenticated sample. FRE
901(b)(3).
EVIDENCE 8
Must a voice be authenticated by an

expert?
www.PassYourBar.com
8
No, a voice can be authenticated by any person who
recognizes it. Under FRE 901(b)(5), "Identification of a
voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or
electronic transmission or recording, [can be
accomplished] by opinion based upon hearing the voice
at any time under any circumstances connecting it with
the alleged speaker"
NOTE: An expert witness, or the jury, can authenticate a
voice by comparing the voice with an authenticated voice
specimen.
NOTE: Once a voice has been authenticated, before the
conversation can be admitted, the proponent must still
establish that the conversation was not "staged," and that
there was no subsequent editing. Proponent must also
disclose how and when the tape was made.
EVIDENCE 9
Must a photographer authenticate a photo

used by a witness to help illustrate his
testimony?
www.PassYourBar.com
9
No - however, the witness must testify,

from personal knowledge, that the photo
fairly represents what it's supposed to
represent. FRE 901(a).
EVIDENCE 10
Under the Federal Rules, are statements

in any authenticated, 20-year-old
document admissible?
www.PassYourBar.com
10
Yes, under FRE 803(16) and 901(b)(8),

the "ancient documents" hearsay
exception.
EVIDENCE 11
Under what circumstances will "learned

treatises" be admitted into evidence under
the Federal Rules?
www.PassYourBar.com
11
According to FRE 803(18), a learned
treatise (on "history, medicine, or other
science or art") can be read into evidence
(but not ad-mitted as an exhibit) if:
1. An expert witness relies on it on direct
examination, or it's called to his attention
on cross-examination; and
2. It's established as reliable authority by
witness's testimony or admission, other
expert testimony, or judicial notice.
EVIDENCE 1
Hearsay
What is hearsay?
www.PassYourBar.com
1
According to FRE 801(c), hearsay is:
1. A statement.
2. Other than one made by the declarant
while testifying, (i.e., out-of-court);
3. Offered to prove the truth of the matter
asserted.
If a statement is hearsay and does not fit any
exception or exclusion to the hearsay rule, and
the other party objects to its admission, it must
be excluded. FRE 802.
EVIDENCE 2
Hearsay
Why is hearsay excluded from evidence?
www.PassYourBar.com
2
Because it is unreliable. If the declarant
does not appear in court, the jury has no
way to evaluate his memory, perception,
sincerity, and ability to communicate; thus,
it has no idea of how much weight to place
on the evidence. Furthermore, hearsay
does not give the opposing party the
chance to confront evidence offered
against him.
EVIDENCE 3
Hearsay
What is often-tested non-hearsay?
www.PassYourBar.com
3
There are three major types. FRE 801(c) excludes out of
court statements from the hearsay rule because they are
not offered to prove the truth of their assertions, but only
to prove they were made. These are:
1. Verbal acts (e.g., words of gift, contract, or
defamation) Notes to FRE 801(c);
2. Statements to show effect on hearer or reader (e.g.,
notice, knowledge, motive, good faith); and
3. Circumstantial evidence of speaker's state of
mind (e.g., "My drink is poisoned," to show belief that
drink was poisoned, not that drink actually was
poisoned).
EVIDENCE 4
Hearsay
What are the hearsay exclusions under the

FRE?
www.PassYourBar.com
4
There are exclusions for statements theoretically hearsay, but

explicitly excluded under FRE 801(d)(1):
1. Admissions - an exclusion under FRE 801(d)(2), and an
exception at common law; and
2. Prior Inconsistent Statements (made under oath, subject to
penalty of perjury);
3. Prior Consistent Statements, to rebut a charge of recent
fabrication or bias;
4. Prior identification of a person, made after perceiving him.
5. Co-conspirators’ statements made during and in the course of the
conspiracy.
MNEMONIC: CAPPP (Co-conspirators’ statements; Admissions;
Prior inconsistent statements; Prior consistent statements; Prior
identification)
EVIDENCE 5
Hearsay
What's the distinction between a statement

which is an exception to the hearsay rule,
and one which is excluded from the
hearsay rule?
www.PassYourBar.com
5
Hearsay exceptions involve statements which fit the hearsay

definition out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of their
assertions which are admissible due to other factors, like
trustworthiness and necessity. An exclusion can be one of the two
types. it can be, theoretically, hearsay, but explicitly excluded from
the hearsay rule, under FRE 801(d). These include admissions, and
three kinds of prior statements of a presently testifying witness - prior
inconsistent statements given while testifying under oath, under
penalty of perjury, at a prior proceeding; prior consistent statements
offered to rebut a charge (express or implied) against witness of
improper motive/influence or recent fabrication; and the witness's
prior identification of some other person. The other type of exclusion
includes those statements which are not offered to show the truth of
their assertion, so aren't really hearsay at all: circumstantial evidence
of speaker's state of mind, statements which show effect on speaker,
or statements that constitute verbal acts (e.g., gift, contract, or
defamation).
EVIDENCE 6
Hearsay
Are admissions by a party-opponent

"hearsay"?
www.PassYourBar.com
6
Under the Federal rules – no. Admissions

are admissible into evidence. Under the
FRE, admissions are non-hearsay, under
Rule 801(d)(2).
EVIDENCE 7
Hearsay
In order to qualify as an admission by a

party opponent, must a statement have
been against interest when it was made?
www.PassYourBar.com
7
No - at the time, the statement could have been
self-serving. It need only be unfavorable to
declarant at trial time. This distinguishes an
admission from a declaration against interest,
which must have been against interest when
made. Furthermore, admissions can only be
made by party-opponents and an admission
need not be based on personal knowledge of the
facts included in the admission, unlike a
declaration against interest.
EVIDENCE 8
Hearsay
Under what circumstances will silence be

admitted as a "tacit admission"?
www.PassYourBar.com
8
Notes to FRE 801(d)(2):
1. The person must have heard the accusatory
statement;
2. The person must have been capable of denying
the statement; and
3. A reasonable person would have denied the
statement were it not true, under the same
circumstances.
MNEMONIC: COD HERD (Capable Of Denying; Heard;
Reasonable to Deny)
EXAMPLE: Silence in response to the comment, at the
scene of the crime: "You murderer!" However, there is no
requirement to respond to an agent of the state, e.g., a
police officer.
EVIDENCE 9
Hearsay
Is non-assertive conduct considered

"hearsay" under the FRE?
www.PassYourBar.com
9
No, under Rule 801(a)
EXAMPLE: Doctor treats patient for AIDS.
Doctor's actions are non-assertive
conduct, since they are not intended as an
assertion. Under the Federal Rules, the
doctor's conduct could be admissible as
nonhearsay to prove the patient had AIDS.
Rationale: Non-assertive conduct is not as
likely to be fabricated as assertive conduct
or words.
EVIDENCE 10
Hearsay
Traditionally, can a witness' prior

inconsistent statement be admitted to
prove the truth of its assertion?
www.PassYourBar.com
10
No. Traditionally, such a statement could
be used for impeachment purposes only.
The Federal Rules agree, unless the prior
inconsistency was testimony under oath at
a trial or deposition, in which case it is not
hearsay and can be used to prove the truth
of the facts it contains (as long as the
declarant is available for
cross-examination at the present
proceeding). FRE 801(d)(1)(A).
EVIDENCE 11
Hearsay
There are three kinds of prior statements

of a presently testifying witness which are
not considered hearsay under the Federal
Rules. What are they?
www.PassYourBar.com
11
Under FRE 801(d)(1):
1. Prior inconsistent statements given while testifying
under oath, under penalty of perjury, at a prior
proceeding;
2. Prior consistent statements offered to rebut a
charge (express or implied) against witness of improper
motive/influence or recent fabrication;
3. The witness' prior identification of some other
person.
MNEMONIC: PICSI (Prior Inconsistent and Consistent
Statements; Identifications.)
N.B.: For all three of these, the declarant must be subject
to cross examination at the current proceeding.
EVIDENCE 12
Hearsay
What are the major hearsay exceptions

when declarant is unavailable and when
availability is immaterial under the FRE?
www.PassYourBar.com
12
FRE 804:
1. Statements against interest;
2. Former testimony;
3. Pedigree (family history); and
4. Dying declaration.
FRE 803:
1. Present sense impression;
2. Excited utterance;
3. Then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition;
4. Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis;
5. Recorded recollection;
6. Records, business;
7. Absence of public records;
8. Public records and reports;
9. Ancient documents;
10. Treatises (learned);
11. Family records;
12. Absence of records;
13. Marital records.
EVIDENCE 13
Hearsay
Under FRE 803(3) then existing mental,

emotional, or physical condition, are past
conditions admissible?
www.PassYourBar.com
13
No. However, expressions of future intent

or plans are included.
EVIDENCE 14
Hearsay
Which hearsay exceptions require that the

out-of-court declarant be unavailable to
testify?
www.PassYourBar.com
14
Under FRE 804(b);
1. Statements against interest;
2. Former testimony;
3. Pedigree/Family History;
4. Dying declarations.
MNEMONIC: SFPD
EVIDENCE 15
Hearsay
Under what circumstances will the

declarant of an out-of-court statement be
considered unavailable to testify?
www.PassYourBar.com
15
Under FRE 804, when he/she is:
1. Subject to mental or physical incapability;
(including, obviously, death)
2. Outside court's subpoena power;
3. Under a privilege not to testify;
4. Claiming lack of memory on events as to which
he is to testify;
5. Refusing to testify.
MNEMONIC: PRISM (Privilege; Refusal; Incapability;
Subpoena; Memory)
NOTE: The judge determines unavailability, not the jury.
COMMON LAW RULE: The common law does not
recognize lack of memory and refusal to testify as
"unavailability," but recognizes the rest.
EVIDENCE 16
Hearsay
Is reputation evidence hearsay?
www.PassYourBar.com
16
Yes under the FRE. Under the Federal

Rules, Rule 803(21), it is an exception to
the hearsay rule.
EVIDENCE 17
Hearsay
What are the requirements of the "former

testimony" exception to the hearsay rule
under FRE 804?
www.PassYourBar.com
17
1. Testimony must be under oath;

2. Declarant must be unavailable; .
3. There must have been an opportunity to cross-examine in
the former proceeding; and
4. The opposing party had to have the incentive to
cross-examine when testimony was originally offered (under FRE
for civil cases, party against whom the testimony was examine;
under traditional common law, issues and parties must have been
identical, so prior testimony was only usable at a retrial; under the
modern trend, which is more liberal than the federal rules, there
need only be identity of interest and motive, with opportunity and
motive to cross-examine at former proceeding).
TYPE OF PROOF: Typically, a certified transcript. If unavailable,
testimony of judge at prior proceeding, or that of a reliable person
who attended (or that person's notes), will be satisfactory.
EVIDENCE 18
Hearsay
Can former testimony from a criminal case

ever be used in a civil case, under the
FRE?
www.PassYourBar.com
18
Yes, under FRE 804(b)(1); therefore, a
witness's testimony against a
defendant in a criminal case can be
used against the same defendant in a
civil case concerning the same
transaction, as long as the witness is
now unavailable. (The "same transaction"
requirement means the defendant had a
similar motive to cross-examine the
witness, in the first trial.)
EVIDENCE 19
Hearsay
How does the FRE regard the admissibility

of prior testimony in a criminal case?
www.PassYourBar.com
19
It is admissible under Rule 804(b)(1) if the prior
testimony was given under oath, in a proceeding where
there was a chance to cross-examine, by a declarant
unavailable at the present proceedings, and it is now
offered against the same defendant, who had the
opportunity and a similar motive for cross-examination
when the former testimony was given.
COMPARE - FRE ON CIVIL CASES. Under 804(b)(1),
the testimony need not be offered only against the same
defendant, as long as the former defendant was the
current defendant's predecessor in interest (i.e., the
former owner of property).
EVIDENCE 20
Hearsay
What is the rationale behind allowing

"dying declarations" into evidence as an
exception to the hearsay rule?
www.PassYourBar.com
20
As with all exceptions, there are circumstances
which suggest trustworthiness.
The theory is that no one wants to die with a lie
on his lips, and thus a statement made when the
declarant believes he is in extremis is likely to be
true.
MNEMOMIC: CUBA (the statement has to do
with the Cause of death; declarant has to be
Unavailable; the statement has to do with a
Belief of death; it is Admissible only in civil cases
and homicide cases).
EVIDENCE 21
Hearsay
What are the elements of the "declaration

against interest" hearsay exception?
www.PassYourBar.com
21
1. The statement must have been against declarant's

financial or property interest when made (under modern rules and
FRE 804(b)(3), penal interest also qualifies), but if it is offered to
exculpate the accused in a criminal trial, it is inadmissible unless
corroborating circumstances indicate trustworthiness.
2. Declarant must be unavailable to testify, and his testimony
(by deposition) cannot be obtained by process or other reasonable
means. 804(a)(5);
3. Declarant must have had personal knowledge of the facts;
4. Declarant must have known the statement was against
interest when made; and
5. Declarant must have had no motive to lie.
NOTE: Under the FRE, Rule 804(b)(3), the exception also includes
any statement so contrary to the declarant's interest that no
reasonable person would have made it were it not true.
EVIDENCE 22
Hearsay
What are the differences between a

"declaration against interest" and an
"admission by a party-opponent"?
www.PassYourBar.com
22
Declaration Admission
1. Made by non party Made by party
2. Unavailability Unavailability
required not necessary
3. Against interest Could be self
when make serving when
made
4. Personal knowledge Personal
of facts necessary knowledge of
facts
unnecessary
EVIDENCE 23
Hearsay
What are the elements of a "present sense

impression," an exception to the hearsay
rule under the Federal Rules?
www.PassYourBar.com
23
According to FRE 803(1), the statement made:
Has been made while the declarant was
perceiving an event/condition (or
immediately thereafter); and
Describes or explains the event/condition.
Note: Declarant’s availability to testify is
irrelevant.
NOTE: Typically this is tested while declarant is
on a telephone call.
MNEMONIC: WED (While Event happens;
Describe)
EVIDENCE 24
Hearsay
What is the rationale behind the "present

sense impression" hearsay exception?
www.PassYourBar.com
24
Because the statement was made
contemporaneously with the event it
concerns, it will suffer no defects in
memory; furthermore, since it usually
would have been made to someone else
who was also present, there was an
opportunity for at least one other person to
correct it.
EVIDENCE 25
Hearsay
What are the elements of the "excited

utterance" exception to the hearsay rule?
www.PassYourBar.com
25
Under the FRE 803(2), the statement must:
1. Be made while declarant is under stress of
excitement;
2. Due to a startling event or condition; and
3. Statement must relate to the event or
condition.
MNEMONIC: SEER (Startling Event; Excitement;
Relate)
EVIDENCE 26
Hearsay
Statements of "present state of mind" may

be offered to prove two things. What are
they?
www.PassYourBar.com
26
Under FRE 803(3):
1. Direct evidence of declarant's state of
mind itself, where state of mind is "in
issue" and material (e.g., intent, attitude,
belief); or
2. Declarant's conduct (in following
through with his stated intent).
MNEMONIC: A BIC (Attitude, Belief,
Intent, Conduct).
EVIDENCE 27
Hearsay
What is the rationale behind the "present

state of mind" hearsay exception, in the
FRE?
www.PassYourBar.com
27
The statement is likely to be trustworthy, since:
1. The declarant knows his own state of
mind, so there are no perception problems;
2. The statement deals with present state of
mind, so there can't be memory defects.
Necessity is also a factor, since, when a party's
state of mind is in issue (e.g., to prove intent),
such statements may be the only way to prove it.
EVIDENCE 28
Hearsay
What are the elements of the "past

physical sensation" hearsay exception,
under the FRE?
www.PassYourBar.com
28
Under FRE 803(4), statements of past
physical sensation or condition are
admissible to prove pain and its cause if it
was:
1. Made for purposes of diagnosis or
treat-ment (thus, they must be made to
medical personnel); and
2. Reasonably pertinent to diagnosis
or treatment.
EVIDENCE 29
Hearsay
What are the elements of the "recorded

recollection" hearsay exception, under the
FRE?
www.PassYourBar.com
29
Under FRE 803(5),
1. Witness must have no present recollection of the facts (if
document revives memory enabling the witness to testify without it,
the document is inadmissible);
2. Document must have been made at the time of the event
(or shortly thereafter);
3. Document must have been made based on personal
knowledge, and made or adopted by the witness;
4. Witness must verify that the document was true when
made; and
5. The document must be authenticated (normally, but not
necessarily, by witness testifying he recognizes his own handwriting
or signature, and attesting to the truth of the statements when
made). If the document qualifies, it may be read into evidence, but
it cannot be received as an exhibit unless the adverse party offers it.
EVIDENCE 30
Hearsay
In general, when a writing is admitted into

evidence as a "past recollection recorded,”
must the document itself be admitted into
evidence or can it be read to the jury?
www.PassYourBar.com
30
Generally the writing itself is

inadmissible unless the opponent
requests otherwise. In most cases, the
writing must simply be read to the jury,
to insure that the jury does not
overvalue its contents. FRE 803(5).
EVIDENCE 31
Hearsay
What are the elements of the "business

records" exception to the hearsay rule?
www.PassYourBar.com
31
Under FRE 803(6)
1. Entry must be made in regular course of business;
2. In conjunction with a business activity;
3. Entered under a duty to record;
4. Entered by one with personal knowledge of matters
record-ed or transmitted from such a person;
5. Entered at or near time of transaction;
6. Must be authenticated at trial (normally, custodian of the
record will testify as to how the record was prepared, and its
identity).
MNEMONIC: BAD KiTTy CAT (Business Activity; Duty; Knowledge;
Time of Transaction; Course of business; Authenticated at Trial)
NOTE: The trial court has discretion, under the FRE, to exclude the
business record if circumstances indicate the record lacks
trustworthiness.
EVIDENCE 32
Hearsay
What are the elements of the "official

records" exception to the hearsay rule,
under the FRE?
www.PassYourBar.com
32
Under FRE 803(8), "records, reports, statements, or data
compilations, in any form, of public offices and agencies,"
are admissible if:
1. They set forth the activities of the office or
agencies;
2. Under a duty imposed by law (does not include
police and law enforcement personnel).
Note that circumstances and the source of the
information must indicate trustworthiness.
Also, factual findings resulting from investigations made
under authority of law are admissible ONLY AGAINST
the government in CRIMINAL cases.
RELATED ISSUE: The absence of such records can be
used as negative evidence on the same basis, FRE
803(10).

Evidence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multistate

Under the FRE, what are the two elements

If evidence is admissible for one purpose,

What is the "Doctrine of Limited

What is "judicial notice"?

At what stage of the trial must a judge take

What kinds of laws (e.g., federal, state,

What's the difference between the burden

What's the difference between the burden

What is the burden of persuasion in an

Does a presumption shift the burden of

Does a presumption have any effect once

What is the common law "Dead Man's

What is a "leading question"?

It is a question which would lead an

Under the FRE, when is the use of

If a witness has been impeached on cross-

What types of materials may be used to

Under the Federal Rules, may a party

What is "intrinsic impeachment"?

Testimony that discredits the witness,

There are five basic types of questions that

What are the primary methods of extrinsic

What types of prior criminal convictions are

Can unconvicted bad conduct ever be

What is the "collateral matter" rule?

How does the FRE deal with the use of old

Can reputation evidence be used to

Is extrinsic evidence relevant to bias

No - Bias is never considered "collateral,"

As a general rule, can lay witnesses offer

In what situations may lay witnesses offer

MNEMONIC: DOVeR SEATS (Distance; Odor; Value; Recognition;

Under the FRE, under what circumstances

In forming his opinion, may an expert rely

What is "logical relevancy"?

What is the balancing test used to

If a piece of evidence is relevant, is it

Why is character evidence generally

What are the three types of character

Character evidence is generally not

MNEMONIC: CHILD DENTIST (Child custody; Defamation;

What is "habit" evidence?

In a criminal case, under what

What is the "Mercy Rule" in relation to

In a criminal case, since the state cannot

Under what circumstances can a criminal

Defendant can offer reputation and opinion evidence of victim's

Could circumstantial evidence alone be

What's the difference between "real

Under what general circumstances will a

1. Appropriate relationship between communicants (e.g.,

What testimonial privileges are available

Does the physician-patient privilege expire

There are two types of husband-wife

Under the FRE, are admissions in

Under the FRE, are admissions in

Can defendant's liability insurance be

What is the "Best Evidence Rule"?

WHEN THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE

When a document is covered by the "Best

What is the "Parol Evidence Rule"?