Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Evidence by Mind Map: Evidence

1. Module 6: Direct & Cross Examination of Witness

1.1. Examining Witnesses

1.1.1. Rule 611: the trial judge exercises discretion to control examination phases, assuring that the attorneys offer the jury helpful information without wasting time or harassing witnesses.

1.1.2. Rule 614: allows judges to question witnesses called by other parties as well as to call their own witnesses. Judges frequently exercise the former power, but rarely engage in the latter.

1.1.3. Rule 615: allows the judge to exclude witnesses from the courtroom during the testimony of other witnesses, either sua sponte or in response to a party’s motion. But parties, as well as witnesses acquiring the foundation for their testimony, cannot be excluded from the courtroom under this rule.

1.2. Refreshing a Witness's Memory

1.2.1. Rule 612: allows parties who did not initiate the refreshment to inspect any document used in this manner, to cross-examine the witness about the document, and to introduce into evidence portions of the document related to the testimony.

1.2.1.1. Documents introduced under Rule 612, however, may only be used to assess a witness’s credibility; the jury may not use them as independent evidence of matters asserted in the documents unless the documents are also admissible under other rules.

1.2.1.2. If a document admitted under Rule 612 is not otherwise admissible, the judge will give the jurors a limiting instruction directing them to use the document only to assess credibility.

1.3. Impeaching Witnesses

1.3.1. Rule 607: allows a party to discredit its own witness when necessary

1.3.1.1. 10 Tactics to Impeach a Witness

1.3.1.1.1. 1. Exclude the Evidence Through a Specialized Rule

1.3.1.1.2. 2. Claim Unfair Prejudice, Confusion, or Delay. Rule 403

1.3.1.1.3. 3. Complete the Story

1.3.1.1.4. 4. Clarify the Ambiguous Testimony

1.3.1.1.5. 5. Show Impairment of Perception or Recollection

1.3.1.1.6. 6. Demonstrate Inconsistencies

1.3.1.1.7. 7. Rebut the Evidence

1.3.1.1.8. 8. Show Bias

1.3.1.1.9. 9. Attack the Witness’s Character for Truthfulness

1.3.1.1.10. 10. Introduce Expert Testimony About Evidence

1.4. Using Prior Statements to Impeach Witness

1.4.1. Rules 401–403: allow parties to ask witnesses about these statements, because any inconsistency casts some doubt on a witness’s credibility.

1.4.2. Rule 613: requiring parties to follow two procedural steps when impeaching witnesses with prior inconsistent statements

1.4.2.1. 1. the attorney must disclose the statement to opposing counsel if the opponent requests that disclosure. The attorney, however, need not show the statement to the witness before asking about it. This requirement applies whether the attorney uses extrinsic or non-extrinsic evidence.

1.4.2.2. 2. if the judge permits extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement, the party offering that evidence must give (a) the affected witness an opportunity to explain or deny the statement, and (b) opposing counsel a chance to examine the witness about the statement.

2. Module 1: Trial Basics, Jury Role

2.1. Evidence 6 Different Categories

2.1.1. Oral Testimony

2.1.1.1. Three Types of Witnesses

2.1.1.1.1. Fact Witness

2.1.1.1.2. Expert Witness

2.1.1.1.3. Character Witness

2.1.1.2. Putting a Witness on the Stand

2.1.1.2.1. Competence

2.1.1.2.2. Rules for Witnesses

2.1.1.2.3. Oaths and Affirmations

2.1.1.2.4. Interpreters

2.1.2. Real Evidence

2.1.2.1. Must Be Authenticated

2.1.3. Documents

2.1.4. Demonstrative Evidence

2.1.5. Stipulations

2.1.6. Judicial Notice

2.2. The Role of the Jury

2.2.1. Need to protect Legitimacy and Finality of Jury Verdicts Rule 060(b) Protections

2.2.1.1. Juror's Competency

2.2.1.2. 4 Limits on Rule 606(b) Protections

2.2.1.2.1. The rule does not come into play until after the jury reaches a verdict.

2.2.1.2.2. Jurors, may testify about External interference: any attempts to bribe, coerce, or otherwise influence a jury improperly.

2.2.1.2.3. Rule 606(b) allows jurors to testify about whether they made a clerical error when transferring the verdict onto the verdict form.

2.2.1.2.4. Supreme Court has ruled that in a criminal case in which the defendant was found guilty, the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a fair and impartial jury will override Rule 606(b) in one specific circumstance: when a juror’s statement indicates she acted out of racial stereotypes or animus.

2.3. 2 Types of Evidence Presented at Trial

2.3.1. Direct Evidence

2.3.2. Circumstantial Evidence

2.4. Structure of Trial

2.4.1. Pretrial Motions

2.4.1.1. Motions in Limine

2.4.1.2. Motion to Surpress

2.4.1.3. Summary Judgement

2.4.2. Jury Selection

2.4.3. Opening Statements

2.4.4. Chief-in-Case

2.4.4.1. Disputing and Defending Evidence

2.4.4.1.1. Rasing Objections

2.4.4.1.2. Defending Evidence

2.4.4.1.3. Maintaining Objections

2.4.4.1.4. Shielding the Jury

2.4.4.2. Putting a Witness on the Stand

2.4.5. Closing Statements

2.4.6. Jury Instructions

2.4.7. Deliberation

2.4.8. Verdict

2.5. Four W's of Federal Rules of Evidence

2.5.1. Why do courts follow rules of evidence? - To Exclude evidence...

2.5.1.1. 1. To protect the jury from misleading information.

2.5.1.2. 2. To eliminate unnecessary delay and promote efficiency.

2.5.1.3. 3. To protect a social interest, such as a confidential relationship.

2.5.1.4. 4. To ensure that evidence is sufficiently reliable.

2.5.2. Who wrote the Federal Rules of Evidence?

2.5.2.1. Notes written by the Advisory Committee

2.5.2.2. Committee Reports and other legislative history from Congress

2.5.3. Where do the Federal Rules of Evidence apply?

2.5.3.1. Federal Courts

2.5.3.1.1. Trial Courts

2.5.3.1.2. Appellate Courts

2.5.3.2. Bankruptcy

2.5.3.3. Other Federal Magistrates

2.5.4. When do the rules apply?:

2.5.4.1. Rule 1101(d). Subsection (1): relieves judges from applying the Rules of Evidence when deciding a preliminary question of fact.

2.5.4.2. Rule 1101(d)(2): recognizes that the Rules of Evidence do not govern grand jury proceedings.

2.5.4.3. Subsection 1101(d)(3): finally, exempts a large number of miscellaneous proceedings from the Federal Rules of Evidence.

2.5.4.4. RULE 1101. Applicability of the Rules (c) Rules on Privilege

3. Module 2: Relevance

3.1. Relevance

3.1.1. Relevance Purposes

3.1.1.1. 1. The rule limits the amount of time that the parties, lawyers, jurors, and judge devote to the case. No one wants to waste time delving into extraneous matters.

3.1.1.2. 2. The relevance requirement focuses the jurors on facts that the law deems important.

3.1.2. Rule 401 - Test for Relevance

3.1.2.1. (1) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it be would without the evidence; and

3.1.2.2. (2) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

3.1.3. Characters of Evidence

3.1.3.1. Rule 609: allows parties to prove that a witness was convicted of crimes of dishonesty. A party will use those specific acts to argue that the witness has an untruthful character.

3.1.3.2. Rule 608: allows a party to introduce evidence that a witness has a reputation for untruthfulness.

3.1.3.3. Four Categories of Character Evidence

3.1.3.3.1. 1. Proof of a Witness’s Propensity to Lie or Tell the Truth: Rules 608 and 609 allow parties to introduce evidence related to a witness’s character for untruthfulness.

3.1.3.3.2. 2. Proof of Conduct by Propensity: Parties often argue that, just as witnesses testify consistently with their character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, people act in other ways that are consistent with other character traits.

3.1.3.3.3. 3. Proof of Character or Reputation as Elements: A party may offer evidence of character or reputation for reasons that do not depend on an inference of propensity.

3.1.3.3.4. 4. Proof of Other Acts for Non-Propensity Purposes: every action a person takes can support multiple inferences.

3.1.3.4. Propensity: Parties introducing evidence of a witness’s untruthful character urge the jury to conclude that the witness’s propensity to lie produced lies on this occasion.

3.1.4. Preliminary Questions

3.1.4.1. Rule 104: establishes a process for resolving disputed issues—both legal and factual—that relate to admissibility. The rule refers to these decisions as “preliminary questions” because they affect the admissibility of evidence rather than disposition of the underlying charges or claims.

3.1.4.1.1. Rule 104(a): assigns most of these preliminary questions to the judge: The judge resolves all legal issues affecting admissibility, as well as most factual ones.

3.1.4.1.2. Rule 104(b): limits the judge’s authority when resolving one category of preliminary factual issues. These are factual issues that affect whether evidence is relevant.

3.1.4.1.3. 104(c): - addresses this need to hold hearings outside the jury’s hearing.

3.1.4.1.4. 104(d): - allows the accused in a criminal case to testify on preliminary matters, such as the voluntariness of a confession, without subjecting himself to cross-examination on other issues in the case.

3.1.4.1.5. 104(e): - even if the judge admits evidence, the parties may dispute the evidence’s weight at trial. The rule specifically acknowledges the right of parties to introduce evidence related to the weight or credibility of other evidence that has been admitted

3.1.4.1.6. Burden of Proof: In close cases governed by the preponderance standard, allocation of the burden of proof is dispositive. Yet Rule 104 offers no guidance on which party bears the burden of proof on admissibility, and judicial decisions provide surprisingly little discussion of this important matter.

3.1.4.1.7. Rule 403’s concern for confusion, delay, and unfair prejudice may affect a judge’s fact finding decisions under both Rules 104(a) and 104(b). If a preliminary factual dispute falls within Rule 104(a), the judge usually resolves the factual issue at the same time that he applies Rule 403. A judge who finds the factual case for admissibility weak will be more inclined to exclude the evidence under Rule 403.

4. Module 3:Unfair Prejudice, Prior Acts, & Character

4.1. Rule 403: applies a counterweight to this generosity; it recognizes that some evidence, although relevant, might have unfair effects if introduced at trial. Some evidence provokes unwanted biases or irrational assumptions in the jury’s mind.

4.1.1. Understanding Rule 403

4.1.1.1. May: signals that judges possess considerable discretion under Rule 403

4.1.1.2. Substantially Outweighed: The balance between probative value and unfair prejudice that judges strike under the rule is not an even-handed one: The rule recognizes a firm tilt toward admissibility. For the judge to exclude relevant evidence, its unfair prejudice, confusion, or delay must “substantially” outweigh its probative value

4.1.1.3. Unfair: Rule 403 authorizes judges to exclude evidence for several reasons, including unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or undue delay. Parties, however, most often invoke the first basis for exclusion: that admitting the challenged evidence would cause unfair prejudice. The final key word underlined above clarifies that this prejudice must be “unfair” to allow exclusion.

4.2. Using Character Evidence to Prove Propensity

4.2.1. Rule 404(a)(1): prohibits the use of character evidence to prove that a person acted consistently with their character on a particular occasion

4.3. Methods of Proving Propensity in Criminal Cases

4.3.1. Rule 405(a): Character Evidence About Accused or Alleged Victim Is Limited to Opinion or Reputation Testimony

5. Module 4: Prior Acts, Character Evidence & Habit

5.1. Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts

5.1.1. 4 Categories of Character Evidence

5.1.1.1. 1. Evidence used to show a witness’s propensity to lie or tell the truth. Rules 608 and 609 allow such attacks, but restrict the types of evidence parties can employ for that purpose.

5.1.1.2. 2. Evidence used to show a witness’s propensity to lie or tell the truth. Rules 608 and 609 allow such attacks, but restrict the types of evidence parties can employ for that purpose.

5.1.1.3. 3. Evidence used to prove a character trait when that trait is an element of the crime, charge, or defense.

5.1.1.4. 4. Evidence of specific acts that reveal an individual’s character but are also relevant to prove some other fact of consequence in the case.

5.1.2. RULE 404. Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts

5.1.2.1. Rule 404(b): Admission of “Character” Evidence for Purposes Other Than Proof of Propensity

5.1.2.2. Understanding Rule 404

5.1.2.2.1. Rule 404(a)(1): Character evidence is not admissible to prove that a person acted “in accordance with” their character.

5.1.2.2.2. “May” - section affirms that evidence of these other acts may be admissible for other purposes

5.1.2.2.3. “such as” - the section lists nine specific examples that qualify as “another purpose” for which evidence of other acts may be admitted.

5.1.2.2.4. the section applies to both criminal and civil cases.

5.1.2.2.5. Rule 404(b) require the prosecution to provide reasonable notice in criminal trials of its intent to introduce evidence of crimes or other acts in the manner sanctioned by this rule

5.1.3. Habit

5.1.3.1. Rule 406: Evidence of Habit or Routine Practice Is Admissible to Show Action on a Particular Occasion

5.1.3.1.1. use of other acts to prove an individual’s habit or an organization’s routine practice.

5.1.3.1.2. To distinguish habit from propensity, focus on three factors

6. Module 5: Other Relevant Evidence Excluded

6.1. Rule 407 prevents litigants from introducing evidence of another party’s subsequent remedial measures.

6.2. Rule 408 encourages civil settlements by excluding evidence related to compromise negotiations from both civil and criminal trials.

6.3. Rule 409 encourages payment of an injured person’s medical expenses by shielding those payments from admission as evidence of liability.

6.4. Rule 410 encourages plea bargaining by shielding some pleas, as well as some statements made during plea discussions, from admission at trial.

6.5. Rule 411 promotes our social interest in insurance by barring evidence of a party’s liability insurance.

6.6. Rule 412 generally bars any evidence of an alleged victim’s sexual reputation or prior sexual acts in cases involving sexual misconduct.

6.7. Rule 413 allows the prosecutor to introduce evidence of other sexual assaults to prove that the defendant had a propensity to commit the crime, if they are charged with sexual assault.