Evidence - Relevance

• FRE: Evidence is relevant if it has:
• 1) any tendency to make
• 2) the existence of any fact of consequence to the action
• 3) more or less probable than it would be without the evidence
• CA: requires that the fact must also be in dispute [watch out if D admits to shooting the victim]

Even if logically relevant, if probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion or waste of time, the court has the discretion to exclude.

• 1) Argue legal relevance or
• 2) limiting instruction, or
• 3) find another way to exclude.

• 1. Liability Insurance
• 2. Subsequent Remedial Measures
• 3. Settlement Offers
• 4. Payment for medical expenses
• 5. Guilty Pleas

• Inadmissible to show:
• 1) culpable conduct or
• 2) ability to pay (deep pockets).
• But admissible for other purposes.

• Evidence of subsequent remedial measures or repairs after an accident is inadmissible to prove
• 1) culpable conduct (ex: negligence) or
• 2) defective design for products liability action

• Evidence of SRM is admissible to rebut:
• 1) D's assertion that no feasible precaution could have been taken ("nothing I could have done") or
• 2) D's assertion of no responsibility/ownership
• CA: admissible to prove
• 3) products liability under strict liability (e.g., defective design)

• Inadmissible against the defendant to prove:
• 1) liability or fault in a civil case, or
• 2) guilt in a criminal case (or no lo contendere).
• Note: In order to settle something, there first must be a claim asserted (filing of a lawsuit; you’re going hear from my lawyer) and in dispute.
• Note: related statements are ALSO INADMISSIBLE
• 3) CA Only: Discussions that occur during mediation proceedings are also inadmissible

• 1) The defendant just blurts out something, and there is no claim yet (or threatened)
• 2) No dispute as to liability or damages - Defendant said “I admit I owe you the full $10,000 you are claiming, but I'll only pay you $5,000. Take it or leave it!” Admissible.
• 3) CA: Prop. 8 might apply to pleas and allow them to be admitted [normally inadmissible under both Fed and CEC]. Argue that court may still exclude for unfair prejudice (under CEC 352).

• 1) Inadmissible to prove liability for the injuries,
• 2) BUT, related statements are STILL ADMISSIBLE
• CA: Related statements ALSO INADMISSIBLE

• **California only**
• expressions of sympathy relating to suffering or death of an accident victim are inadmissible.
• Related statements are ADMISSIBLE

• sometimes admissible to prove causation
• admissible if there are similarities b/n evidence and people & events at issue
• Example: chicken McNuggets food poisoning, P can testify that Ronald McDonald was in next bed at hospital, and got sick eating McNuggets at same restaurant at same time. Relevant to prove causation.

• Generally INadmissible
• Evidence of prior accidents or prior occasions are inadmissible to prove negligence as to plaintiff’s conduct this time.
• Exception: pattern of prior fraudulent claims by Plaintiff is admissible
• Exception: plaintiff's pre-existing condition is admissible (shows lack of causation, also goes to damages)

• admissible for limited purposes . . .
• 1) to show intent
• Example: employment discrimination on gender, P shows D hired males in 100 other positions.
• Relevant to show intent to discriminate, admissible.
• 2) to rebut a defense of impossibility
• 3) to prove value, if it's a comparable sale of property
• 4) to prove habit
• 5) to prove routine business practice [business habit] (conduct in conformity with routine business practice on the occassion in question)
• 6) to prove industry custom practice [establish standard of care in a negligence case]

• Habit: specific conduct in a specific situation, and does not carry with it any moral judgment (describing in neutral way what D does in a specific situation)
• Must be frequently repeated conduct, not just a couple of instances.