Law Outlines Evidence Outlines
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...
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:
Impeachment
Methods
Bolstering
Generally must wait until W is impeached (Rehabilitation)
Exceptions:
Timely complaint
Prior identification (also admissible as substantive evidence that identification was correct – 801(d)(1)(C))
Show W’s propensity for dishonesty (character trait)
Show W is biased or has interest in case
Attack W’s testimonial qualities
Ability to observe (perceive)
Ability to remember
Ability to relay accurately (narrate)
Understanding of duty to tell truth
Show prior inconsistent statement (FRE 613)
Contradict W’s testimony through other evidence
Consequences when evidence is admissible only to impeach
Because it’s not substantive evidence, it does not count toward the proponent’s burden of production or persuasion
Doesn’t go into judge’s analysis in summary judgments (can’t judge credibility)
Cannot be used as proof of disputed fact (besides witness’s credibility)
Opponent can object under 403.
Opponent can also get limiting instruction.
Collateral matters
Not allowed
Policy: confusion of issues, undue consumption of time
Impeaching Hearsay Declarant: FRE 806
Any evidence that would be admissible if declarant was W is also admissible against hearsay declarant
FRE 608 – non convictions
608(a) = Reputation and Opinion
only on character traits relevant to truthfulness
most states don’t allow opinion evidence, but FRE does
OPENS DOOR TO SPECIFIC ACTS (608(b)(2)): when W offers opinion/reputation, W may be cross-x’d on specific acts probative of truthfulness that impeached party may have committed.
Purpose: to test the basis for the character witness’s reputation/opinion testimony
May use to rehabilitatie only after OP has attacked W’s character for truthfulness
608(b) = specific acts of W (non-convictions)
Only permitted on Cross-X to…
Establish W’s character for truthfulness/untruthfulness
Establish W2’s character for truthfulness/untruthfulness (as long as W impeached W2)
Factors
Must relate to truthfulness
Inquiry must be based on good faith/reasonableness
Subject to 403 exclusion
Bound by W’s answer (no extrinsic evidence)
FRE 609 – Convictions (arrest is not enough)
If more than 10 years have passed…
Generally not admitted, too remote
Reverse 403
Note: Time limitation runs from date of conviction or date of release, whichever is most recent
If less than 10 years…
609(a)(1): Crime must be punishable by death or by over a year in prison and must satisfy balancing test
Balancing test for all Ws except crim D: 403
Balancing test for Ws that are crim Ds: reverse 403
609(a)(2): Crimen falsei: automatically admitted, regardless of punishment and balancing test.
Crimen Falsi – usually statutory elements will indicate whether a showing of such a dishonest act was required to convict
Not admissible if…
Conviction has been subject of: pardon, annulment, certificate of rehab, other equivalent procedure based on finding that the person has been rehabilitated
Juvenile convictions admissible if…
Offered in criminal case
Adjudication was of a witness other than the D
An adult’s convictions for that offense would be admissible to attack the adult’s credibility, and
Admitting the evidence is necessary to fairly determine guilt or innocence
Conviction is admissible even if an appeal is pending. Evidence of the pendency is also admissible.
California Distinction
CEC 788 (DON’T NEED TO KNOW)
W’s credibility may be attacked by evidence that he has been convicted of any felony, not just crimen falsi
Beagle:
Balancing factors of Beagle
Courts should consider how prior conviction
Reflects on honesty
Near/remote in time
For safe or similar conduct as charged
Adverse effect of admission on D’s willingness to testify
No different test for old convictions
FRE 613: Prior Inconsistent Statements
Admissible only if W is given opportunity to explain/deny the statement and adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the W about it
BUT this foundation requirement may be dispensed with if “the interests of justice otherwise require.”
Must give notice to OP if asked
403 balancing test applies
California distinction
CEC 1235 (prior inconsistent statements)
Inconsistent statement can be used as substantive evidence if the statement is otherwise admissible under Section 770
(A party can introduce inconsistent...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Evidence Outlines.
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...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started