Preview only show first 10 pages with watermark. For full document please download

Evidence Handout Barbri*

evidence handout barbri

   EMBED


Share

Transcript

   © Copyright 2014 BARBRI NEW YORK EVIDENCE Prof. Vincent C. Alexander St. John’s University School of Law INTRODUCTION A. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE LAW 1. Multistate Law:  _____________________________________________ 2. New York Law: 80% the same as the Multistate; 20% NY Distinctions  ___________________________________________________________ B. OVERVIEW: EVIDENCE TOPICS 1. The Three Major Topics (a)  __________________________ (b)  __________________________ (c)  __________________________ 2. The Three Minor Topics (a)  __________________________ (b)  __________________________ (c)  __________________________ 3. Five Topics Not Covered in Lecture (a) Procedural Considerations (b) Burden of Proof (c) Presumptions (d) Judicial Notice (e) Real Evidence  2. NEW YORK EVIDENCE   I. RELEVANCE   A. Basic Principles   1. Evidence is RELEVANT if it has _______________________to make a material fact more probable or less probable than would be the case without the evidence. 2.  All relevant evidence is ADMISSIBLE, UNLESS (a) some specific EXCLUSIONARY RULE is applicable, or (b) the court makes a discretionary determination that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by one or more of six PRAGMATIC CONSIDERATIONS: Danger of unfair prejudice Confusion of the issues Misleading the jury Undue delay Waste of time Unduly cumulative  ______________________________________________________  ______________________________________________________  ______________________________________________________  ______________________________________________________  ______________________________________________________  ______________________________________________________  ______________________________________________________ B. Similar Occurrences  IN GENERAL, if evidence concerns SOME TIME, EVENT OR PERSON OTHER THAN THAT INVOLVED IN THE CASE AT HAND, the evidence is INADMISSIBLE. Probative value is usually outweighed by pragmatic considerations (e.g., weak relevance, danger of confusion, misleading the  jury, time-consuming). But six recurring situations have produced concrete rules that may permit admissibility.    NEW YORK EVIDENCE 3. 1. Plaintiff’s Accident History. GENERALLY, plaintiff’s accident history is _____________ because it shows nothing more than the fact that the plaintiff is accident-prone.  _______________________________________________________  _______________________________________________________ EXCEPTION: Plaintiff’s prior accidents ADMISSIBLE if:  _______________________________________________________ HYPO 1.  Billy Joel drove into a lamp post and sues the municipality in negligence, alleging that the placement of the post created a hazardous condition. (a) On the issue of contributory negligence, should the municipality be allowed to introduce evidence that Billy has frequently driven into other stationary objects (tree, bridge, brick wall)?  __________________________________________________________________ (b) What if Billy claims that the accident injured his shoulder, and the municipality wants to show that Billy’s shoulder was injured when he crashed into a tree a year before the lamp post incident?  __________________________________________________________________ Q-TIP: Always ask yourself—For what purpose is the evidence being offered?  __________________________________________________________________ 2. Similar Accidents Caused by Same Instrumentality or Condition.  GENERALLY, other accidents involving defendant are inadmissible because they suggest nothing more than defendant’s general character for carelessness. EXCEPTION: Other accidents involving the same instrumentality or condition may be admitted for 3 potential purposes IF the other accident occurred  _______________________________________: (1) ____________________ (2) ____________________ (3) ____________________  4. NEW YORK EVIDENCE   HYPO 2.  Assume in Hypo 1 that several other vehicles had collided with the same lamp post that Billy ran into. Could Billy introduce those other accidents against the municipality?  ___________________________________________________________________  ___________________________________________________________________  ___________________________________________________________________  ___________________________________________________________________  ___________________________________________________________________  ___________________________________________________________________ Substantial similarity is also the rule governing the admissibility of EXPERIMENTS and TESTS. 3. Intent in Issue.  Prior similar conduct of a person may be admissible to raise an inference of the person’s intent on later occasion. HYPO 3. Paris sues Brewski Co. for gender discrimination, alleging that she was qualified for the job but was not hired because of her gender. She seeks to show that Brewski hired no women, despite their qualifications, during the past 6 years.  Admissible?  ___________________________________________________________________  ___________________________________________________________________ 4. Comparable Sales on Issue of Value.  Selling price of other property of similar type, in same general location, and close in time to period at issue, is some evidence of value of property at issue.