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

Law Outlines Evidence Outlines

Character Outline

Updated Character Notes

Evidence Outlines

Evidence

Approximately 58 pages

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...

Available here

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:

  1. Character: 404-406, 413-415

    1. Permissible reasons

      1. character itself is ultimate issue in case

        1. Must be admitted, even specific acts

        2. Used in entrapment defense: b/c you have to show you’re not predisposed to commit crime

      2. D’s good, pertinent character (just reputation and opinion)

      3. To show V’s bad character (or good, if door opened)

      4. Door has been opened by D

      5. To impeach/rehabilitate credibility of witness

      6. Habit/routine

      7. Theory of Relevance not relying on character inference

        1. Knowledge

        2. Intent

        3. Plan

        4. Preparation

        5. Opportunity

        6. Motive

        7. Identity (modus operandi)

        8. Absence of mistake

        9. accident

    2. FRE 404

      1. 404(a) = permissible use of character evidence

        1. D may offer evidence of D’s pertinent character trait (opens the door for P)

          1. Policy: so D has every means available to invite jury to find reasonable doubt, including D’s own character.

          2. How? See 405

        2. D may offer evidence of alleged V’s trait (opens the door for character evidence of V and D)

          1. Policy: 6th amendment right to put on your defense.

          2. Subject to limitations of FRE 412 (rape shield)

            1. Criminal: may use evidence only to show…

              1. that someone other than D was source of semen/injury

              2. specific instances of V’s sexual behavior with D (to show consent)

            2. Civil: probative value must substantially outweigh danger of harm to victim and unfair prejudice to any prejudice. Court may admit evidence of V’s reputation only if V has placed it in controversy.

        3. In homicide case, P may offer evidence of V’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that V was first aggressor

          1. Policy: V can’t be present to defend herself and there is usually not other witnesses during a murder

      2. FRE 404(b) = specific acts relevant without character inference

        1. Must show that specific act happened

          1. Huddleston : Standard to get past crimes in: 104(b) ESSF that the party committed the bad act

        2. 403 Objection

          1. 2 factors to determine the probative value of prior bad act evidence:

            1. The remoteness in time of the other act and

            2. The degree of resemblance to the crime charged

          2. Varoudakis –P’s theory of relevance: previous car fire shows the developed trust relationship with wife and D, such that he is willing and able to commit crimes in front of her. But the court finds that there is too much prejudice to this past act, especially since P is putting on a lot of evidence about how wife helped with the specific crimes (stopped paying insurance bill, moved all furniture)

            1. The government enhanced the prejudice by putting it in their opening statement…invited the jury to use the evidence the wrong way, thus undermining the admissibility of P’s evidence

            2. Criticism of P

              1. Prosecution has advantage of context and time. Ps know the totality of their case before trial, and how the prior bad act fits into it. P knew they didn’t need car-fire evidence in order to determine relationship between D and girlfriend

          3. Montelongo – Past bad act need not be convicted, 403 dangers against W

            1. Truck’s owner had been charged with hiding drugs in the truck in the past. Evidence cut against knowledge element for Ds. Although owner was not charged last time, there is still ESSF that act occurred and owner was involved

            2. 403 dangers don’t substantially outweigh probative value – only prejudiced against witness, not the person on trial

      3. Irregular rules

        1. Domestic Violence

          1. CEC 1109: allows in past incidents of DV to show D’s character as a batterer, from which the jury is asked to infer that D battered on this occasion

        2. Specific intent to sell drugs

          1. P allowed to introduce evidence of past...

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

More Evidence Samples