ITT: Evidence

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
HiiPower2015
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby HiiPower2015 » Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:38 pm

This came up on a practice exam I'm doing and I can't find it in my notes but I thought I remember my professor mentioning it. What issues come up when the plaintiff attempts to introduce defendant's previous history of filing multiple lawsuits.

it seems like it could be character evidence, or may just be irrelevant unless its shown that the claims were frivolous

User avatar
brotherdarkness
Posts: 3254
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:11 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby brotherdarkness » Thu Dec 05, 2013 8:37 pm

.
Last edited by brotherdarkness on Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

cmartin5970
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby cmartin5970 » Thu Dec 05, 2013 10:46 pm

After doing some hypos, I realize I don't understand Rule 408 even though it seemed simple at first.
The text itself says, "Evidence of the following is not admissible — on behalf of any party — either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim"
When it mentions the amount or validity of a "disputed claim", is it referring to the claim which is currently being litigated, or the claim in which a settlement was offered. I know in most cases the settlement offer pertains to the case that is actually at trial but in this hypo they are different.

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby bjsesq » Fri Dec 06, 2013 1:10 am

cmartin5970 wrote:After doing some hypos, I realize I don't understand Rule 408 even though it seemed simple at first.
The text itself says, "Evidence of the following is not admissible — on behalf of any party — either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim"
When it mentions the amount or validity of a "disputed claim", is it referring to the claim which is currently being litigated, or the claim in which a settlement was offered. I know in most cases the settlement offer pertains to the case that is actually at trial but in this hypo they are different.


Claim in which the settlement was offered. Consider the justification for the rule in the first place: we don't want to discourage people from settling, so a settlement in that particular case cannot mean shit (legally) as to whether the claim was valid.

cmartin5970
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby cmartin5970 » Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:13 am

bjsesq wrote:
cmartin5970 wrote:After doing some hypos, I realize I don't understand Rule 408 even though it seemed simple at first.
The text itself says, "Evidence of the following is not admissible — on behalf of any party — either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim"
When it mentions the amount or validity of a "disputed claim", is it referring to the claim which is currently being litigated, or the claim in which a settlement was offered. I know in most cases the settlement offer pertains to the case that is actually at trial but in this hypo they are different.


Claim in which the settlement was offered. Consider the justification for the rule in the first place: we don't want to discourage people from settling, so a settlement in that particular case cannot mean shit (legally) as to whether the claim was valid.


say you are suing police officer X for excessive force and you want to bring in evidence that 2 years ago he settled a claim for excessive force for $20,000. I know it wouldn't come in so the hypo isn't perfect, but would the settlement be inadmissible to prove the validity of the previous excessive force claim, or inadmissible to prove the validity of the current lawsuit against the officer?

User avatar
Birdnals
Posts: 4576
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:26 am

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Birdnals » Sat Dec 07, 2013 9:36 pm

Hey everybody, make me know all the evidences by Wednesday. Go.

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Blumpbeef » Sat Dec 07, 2013 9:39 pm

Birdnals wrote:Hey everybody, make me know all the evidences by Wednesday. Go.


Gimme like an hour and I'll do my part for you. Also, I need to learn this shit by Tuesday.

Also, I think you know twice as much as I do at this point.

User avatar
brotherdarkness
Posts: 3254
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:11 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby brotherdarkness » Sat Dec 07, 2013 9:39 pm

.
Last edited by brotherdarkness on Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Birdnals
Posts: 4576
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:26 am

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Birdnals » Sat Dec 07, 2013 9:43 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:
Birdnals wrote:Hey everybody, make me know all the evidences by Wednesday. Go.


Don't be like me and not see the adopted admission. Eyes. Peeled.


My prof is all about saying things like "first we need to determine it relevant" even when any retard could see it is, so I have a checklist so I don't brain fart.


Also, fuck multiple choice/essay tests. They throw the fuck off my timing. Pick one!

User avatar
Pleasye
Posts: 7960
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:22 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Pleasye » Sat Dec 07, 2013 9:55 pm

I know BDs test is already over but police reports are NOT admissible under public or business records exception. They are prepared in anticipation of litigation. They are admissible for impeachment purposes.

User avatar
brotherdarkness
Posts: 3254
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:11 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby brotherdarkness » Sat Dec 07, 2013 9:58 pm

.
Last edited by brotherdarkness on Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Pleasye
Posts: 7960
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:22 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Pleasye » Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:01 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:
Pleasye wrote:I know BDs test is already over but police reports are NOT admissible under public or business records exception. They are prepared in anticipation of litigation. They are admissible for impeachment purposes.


Thanks for looking (and hopefully it helps someone else here). It didn't come up on my exam (or maybe it did and I didn't see it). Evidence makes me sad.

I'm sure you did fine, you're a smarty pants <3

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby stillwater » Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:51 pm

Pleasye wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:
Pleasye wrote:I know BDs test is already over but police reports are NOT admissible under public or business records exception. They are prepared in anticipation of litigation. They are admissible for impeachment purposes.


Thanks for looking (and hopefully it helps someone else here). It didn't come up on my exam (or maybe it did and I didn't see it). Evidence makes me sad.

I'm sure you did fine, you're a smarty pants <3


yea, BD, you're a smarty pants. you did just fine. no doom and gloom out of you.

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Blumpbeef » Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:35 am

Worst. Saturday night. Ever.

User avatar
Pleasye
Posts: 7960
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:22 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Pleasye » Sun Dec 08, 2013 2:10 am

Blumpbeef wrote:Worst. Saturday night. Ever.

I still love evidence. But I'm doing CALI lessons and they're pissing me off.

User avatar
Birdnals
Posts: 4576
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:26 am

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Birdnals » Sun Dec 08, 2013 10:01 am

For an 801(d)(1)(c) statement of identification, because the person who made the identification has to be available for cross, wouldn't any other testimony by a 3rd party (like the cop also present at the line up) be cumulative? Would this just mean you always need to make a 403 argument on this type of scenario or am I missing something?

User avatar
Birdnals
Posts: 4576
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:26 am

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Birdnals » Sun Dec 08, 2013 12:54 pm

BlueLotus wrote:If a defendant was convicted of any crime involving dishonesty, but it's been over 10 years since the conviction (or release from confinement--whichever's later) then does the judge have discretion to keep it out?


And to answer, the judge always have discretion to keep out crimes of dishonesty for 403 reasons. They are just presumed to be admissible. After ten years it is the same only they are not presumed to be admissible. It still can go to creditability which is always material.

User avatar
brotherdarkness
Posts: 3254
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:11 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby brotherdarkness » Sun Dec 08, 2013 12:58 pm

.
Last edited by brotherdarkness on Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Birdnals
Posts: 4576
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:26 am

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Birdnals » Sun Dec 08, 2013 12:59 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:
Birdnals wrote:
BlueLotus wrote:If a defendant was convicted of any crime involving dishonesty, but it's been over 10 years since the conviction (or release from confinement--whichever's later) then does the judge have discretion to keep it out?


And to answer, the judge always have discretion to keep out crimes of dishonesty for 403 reasons.


No.

(2) for any crime regardless of the punishment, the evidence must be admitted if the court can readily determine that establishing the elements of the crime required proving — or the witness’s admitting — a dishonest act or false statement.

That's one of the crucial distinctions. A felony is balanced, a crime of dishonesty is not.


Fuck, you are right. I was looking at the 2006 amendment about the proponent needing to have readily available proof that the conviction involved dishonestly/false statements.

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Blumpbeef » Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:15 pm

Birdnals wrote:For an 801(d)(1)(c) statement of identification, because the person who made the identification has to be available for cross, wouldn't any other testimony by a 3rd party (like the cop also present at the line up) be cumulative? Would this just mean you always need to make a 403 argument on this type of scenario or am I missing something?


You can have testimony of other identifications to corroborate the one at issue, since the witness will likely be attacked for not getting a good look at the perp.

Also, if the witness is impeached for her truthtellling then you might need a police officer to testify that she had in fact identified the perp in the past.

User avatar
Pleasye
Posts: 7960
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:22 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Pleasye » Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:03 pm

Pleasye wrote:I know BDs test is already over but police reports are NOT admissible under public or business records exception. They are prepared in anticipation of litigation. They are admissible for impeachment purposes.

Just to add to this: police reports are available to be used against the government in a criminal case.

User avatar
Birdnals
Posts: 4576
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:26 am

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Birdnals » Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:07 pm

Pleasye wrote:
Pleasye wrote:I know BDs test is already over but police reports are NOT admissible under public or business records exception. They are prepared in anticipation of litigation. They are admissible for impeachment purposes.

Just to add to this: police reports are available to be used against the government in a criminal case.


Right, for due process concerns. They are also admissible as 803(8) government records for civil cases most the time because they were made under a legal duty (think things like downed tree branches reports)

From understanding evidence:
Most federal courts have adopted a flexible approach, holding that the police records exclusion does not apply to all police records- i.e., routine non adversarial matters are not excluded.


Rule803(8)(A)(ii) is only an absolute exclusion for police records in criminal cases (but again, due process requires a criminal defendant be able to use them against the government)

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Blumpbeef » Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:22 pm

I just hit that wonderful point where I understand it well enough to realize how fucked I am.

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Blumpbeef » Sun Dec 08, 2013 10:27 pm

I got this from my supplement (as rephrased in my notes, and with my own made up example), but I have another book that contradicts it, saying that FRE prevents any admissions during negotiations entirely. Thoughts?

Rule 408: statements made during negotiations, even if they sound like admissions, are not admissible. However, an out and out admission is not protected. "I know I owe you $500, but I'm only going to give you $300 right now and if you want the 500 you'll have to take this to trial" is not protected. Has to be with regards to both liability and damages; so an admission of negligence but not as to damages is not admissible.


ETA: does this fall under the "proving an effort to obstruct" exception under 408b? What about for civil cases?

User avatar
Birdnals
Posts: 4576
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:26 am

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Birdnals » Sun Dec 08, 2013 10:40 pm

Blumpbeef wrote:I got this from my supplement (as rephrased in my notes, and with my own made up example), but I have another book that contradicts it, saying that FRE prevents any admissions during negotiations entirely. Thoughts?

Rule 408: statements made during negotiations, even if they sound like admissions, are not admissible. However, an out and out admission is not protected. "I know I owe you $500, but I'm only going to give you $300 right now and if you want the 500 you'll have to take this to trial" is not protected. Has to be with regards to both liability and damages; so an admission of negligence but not as to damages is not admissible.


ETA: does this fall under the "proving an effort to obstruct" exception under 408b? What about for civil cases?


No, this is an example where there has to be an issue in dispute. That example is not a good faith settlement, and according to the advisory committee notes (which in this case most courts follow): the policies underlying rule 408 "do not come into play when the effort is to induce a creditor to settle an admittedly due amount for a lesser sum"

In other words, the person is not disputing liability OR the amount owed, just the amount he wants to pay, which is not a legal dispute and doesn't fulfill the 408 dispute requirement.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LawHammer, mjb447 and 9 guests