Mini Review:
1.Character evidence
✧Criminal ca:
(1)Procutor can’t introduce bad character for the purpo of proving action in conformity with character;
(2)D is allowed to introduce good character to prove he acted in conformity with good character;
(3)If D provided good character evidence, Procutor is allowed to show bad character evidence (reputation and opinion) and cross-examination of character witness by means of intrinsic evidence of “specific act”
(4)Evidence of other crimes are inadmissible for conformity purpo, but likely admissible for MIMIC purpo;99宿舍网查四六级成绩
(5)If D takes the stand, P may impeach D with character evidence of untruthfulness.
✧Civil ca:
(1)You can’t introduce character evidence to show conformity;
(2)Character evidence may be introduced for other purpos, such as negligent hiring/entrustment, defamation, fraud, and MIMIC…;
(3)Watch for the difference between character evidence and habit evidence.
2.Impeachment
✧Prior inconsistent statement
∆Extrinsic evidence allowed
∆Impeached witness must be given opportunity to comment, before or after the offer of such extrinsic evidence
✧Bias
∆Extrinsic evidence allowed
∆Witness must be cross-examined for the facts showing bias/interest prior to introduction of extrinsic evidence
✧Prior crime conviction (10 years limitation雅思作文评分标准 for FRE)
∆Involving dishonesty/fal statement
∆Other felony balance test
∆Extrinsic evidence by means of conviction record
✧Prior bad act – only intrinsic evidence allowed, no asking about arrest
✧Untruthfulness
∆Reputation/opinion
∆Specific evidence only by cross-examination, if denied, no extrinsic evidence
3.Hearsay (note, party admission is nonhearsay under FRE)
a)Method: hearsay? prior inconsistent statement, prior consistent statement, effect upon people, verbal act exception
b)Prior identification (nonhearsay under FRE)
c)Prent n impression
d)Excited utterance
e)Medical treatment statement
ysof)Biz records
g)dennis gaborFormer testimony
h)Dying declaration
i)Party admission: vicarious admission (employee, partner, co-conspirator), adoptive admission
I.Relevance相关性
A.Logical Relevance (Probativeness)
1.Standard of admissibility – does the evidence have any tendency to make a material fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence (relate to time / person / event)是不是和争议的人，事，或者时间有关
2.Exceptions where admissible – similar occurrences相似事件通常具有较小的相关性
a.Prior accidents or claims
(i)P’s prior accident history – inadmissible; EXCEPT
aone(a)Prove common plan & scheme of fraud; or原告以前提出过类似的欺诈性/错误的诉讼请求
(b)When cau of P’s damages is in issue确定是否有因果关系
(ii)D’s prior conditions – ONLY involving the same instrumentality or condition, and occurring under substantially similar circumstances, to prove:由同样条件引起的相似事故或者伤害
(a)Existence of a dangerous condition
(b)D had prior notice
(c)maitlandCausation
b.Intent is issue – draw inference of intent from prior gender discrimination意图或者思想状态
c.Similar sales to establish value价值
d.Habit Evidence – to infer a person acted on the occasion at issue特定性和经常性
(i)Disposition evidence – NOT admissible
(ii)Prior Act evidence (propensity) – NOT admissible
(iii)Habit – Admissible (key words – always, invariably, automatically, instinctively)
(a)particularity; AND (b) toeic考试frequency (judge’s discretion how often is enough)
backorder
*NY Distinctions – Habit Evidence (more suspicious)
1.Personal habit on issue of due care in negligent – INADMISSIBLE
2.Personal habit in u of product – Admissible (in products liability ca)
