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

Law Outlines Oklahoma Bar Bundle Outlines

Evidence Bar Exam Outline

Updated Evidence Bar Exam Notes

Oklahoma Bar Bundle Outlines

Oklahoma Bar Bundle

Approximately 261 pages

I entirely handwrote my notes for each subject of the bar exam and then used my notes to create my outlines for each subject. I passed the exam in 2012 on the first attempt. ...

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

Evidence

RELEVANCE

  • Basic Principal

    • Evidence is RELEVANT if it has ANY TENDENCY to make a fact of consequence more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence

    • All IRRELEVANT evidence is INADMISSIBLE

    • All relevant evidence is ADIMISSIBLE, UNLESS

      • Some specific EXCLUSION applies, or

      • Court makes discretionary determination that the PROBATIVE VALUE SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED BY:

        • Danger of UNFAIR prejudice

        • Confusion of the issues

        • Misleading the jury

        • Undue delay

        • Waste of Time ( NOT OKLAHOMA)

        • Unduly cumulative

        • Unfair & Harmful Surprise (ONLY OKLAHOMA)

  • OK: Homicide prosecution, "appropriate photo" of victim while alive admissible by DA to show general appearance & condition of victim while alive

  • Prior 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

      • Exception: some recurring situations have concrete rules that may permit admissibility

        • Plaintiff's accident history usually inadmissible

          • But is admissible if the cause of Plaintiff's damages is at issue

        • Similar Accidents Caused by Same Event or Condition (defendant's accidents) usually inadmissible

          • But other accidents involving same instrumentality or condition, and occurring under substantially similar circumstances, may be admitted for:

            • Existence of dangerous condition

            • Causation

            • Prior Notice to D

        • Intent in Issue

        • Comparable Sales on Issue of Value

        • Habit

          • Habit= a repetitive response to a particular set of circumstances

          • Habit of a person (or routine of a business organization) is Admissible as circumstantial evidence of how the person (or business) acted on the occasion at issue

          • Key words: always, invariably, automatically, instinctively

        • Industrial Custom as Standard of Care

          • How others in same trade or industry have acted in recent past may be admitted as some evidence as to how a party in this litigation Should have acted

          • Evidence of the APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF CARE

  • Policy Based Exlusions

    • Relevant but not admissible

  • Liability Insurance

    • Inadmissible to Prove Fault or Absence of Fault

    • Admissible as Proof of Ownership/Control of Instrumentality or Location, IF CONTROVERTED, or

    • For Purpose of Impeachment

      • Bias

  • Subsequent Remedial Measures

    • Inadmissible to show negligence, culpable conduct, need for warning

    • BUT admissible to show proof of ownership/control , or feasibility of safer condition IF CONTROVERTED

  • Settlements

    • Civil:

      • Evidence of a Settlement or OFFER to Settle a DISPUTED CLAIM is INADMISSIBLE to PROVE liability or weakness of case

      • Also, STATEMENTS OF FACT made in court of settlement discussions INADMISSIBLE

      • BUT, evidence of settlement ADMISSIBLE for purpose of IMPEACHMENT for BIAS

      • Claim must be disputed at time of statement as to validity or amount of damages

    • Criminal

      • Inadmissible:

        • Offer to plead guilty

          • Cant be used vs. defendant in pending criminal case or subsequent civil litigation based on same fact

        • Withdrawn guilty plea

          • Cant be used vs. defendant in pending criminal case or subsequent civil based on same facts

        • Plea of no contest or nolo contendere

          • Cant be used vs. defendant in subsequent civil lit based on same facts

        • Statements of fact

          • Made during any above plea discussions

      • BUT, plea of GUILTY (not withdrawn) is ADMISSIBLE in subsequent litigation based on the same facts under the rule of Party Admissions.

  • Offer to Pay Hospital of Medical Expenses

    • Inadmissible to prove liability

      • But statements of fact made in conjunction w/ the offer to pay bills is admissible

        • No need to talk to be charitable

CHARACTER EVIDENCE

  • Potential Purposes for Admissibility of Character Evidence:

    • Person's character is a MATRIAL element in the Case (Rare)

    • Character Evidence to Prove Conduct in Conformity With Character at the time of the litigated event, a/k/a character as circumstantial evidence of conduct on a particular occasion

      • Propensity Evidence

    • Witness's bad character for truthfulness to IMPEACH CREDIBILITY

      • Propensity to lie or tell truth on witness stand

  • Criminal Cases

    • Defendant's Character

      • Generally

        • Evidence of defendant's character to prove conduct in conformity is NOT ADMISSIBLE DURING PROSECUTION"S CASE-IN-CHIEF

        • BUT, DEFENDANT, during defense, MAY INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF A RELEVANT CHARACTER TRAIT (by reputation or opinion witness) to prove conduct in conformity, thereby OPENING THE DOOR TO REBUTTAL by prosecution

    • Prosecutions Rebuttal

      • IF defendant has "opened the door" by calling character witnesses, the prosecution may rebut:

        • By cross-examining the defendants' character witness w/ "Have your Heard" or "Did you know" questions about specific acts of the defendant that reflect adversely on the particular character trait that defendant has introduced

          • Must have good basis for question

          • If witness says no, cant use extrinsic evidence to prove it

          • Impeaches the character witness' knowledge

        • AND/OR

        • Calling own reputation or opinion witnesses to contradict defendant's witness

  • Victims Character- Self Defense Case

    • Criminal defendant may introduce evidence of victim's violent character to prove victim's conduct in conformity, ie. , as circumstantial evidence that victim first aggressor

      • Proper Method:

        • Character may testify to victim's reputation for violence and may give opinion

      • Prosecution Rebuttal:

        • Evidence of victim's good character (reputation/opinion) (OK ONLY THIS)

          • Under FRE: prosecution can prove defendant violent character, but not in OK

  • Victim's Character- Sexual Misconduct Case

    • Under Fed "rape shield law', in both criminal & civil cases, where defendant alleged to have engaged in sexual misconduct, the following evidence about victim normally inadmissible

      • ...

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