Top Law Schools

Hey everybody,

My Evidence professor said he wants us to organize our answers based on the purpose for which the evidence is used. I'm having some trouble putting that into action and am stuck on a hypo. Here's the boiled down version: A was found by Officer at scene of arson, and A told Officer that the fire was beautiful and sometimes a fire is needed to wipe out all the minorities.

Am I correct in thinking the evidence can be used for two purposes, #1 to show that he was racist/possible motive and #2 to show that he actually committed the crime. Then would I have a header for Purpose #1 and discuss each of the two statements to determine if they are relevant or hearsay. and then do the same for purpose #2. Then would I discuss possible character evidence issues, and conclude with 403 analysis?

Also for hearsay and his statement that a fire is necessary to clean the slate. is the proper train of thought whether it must be true that a fire is actually necessary to clean the slate? If yes, then its offered to prove the truth, if no its offered to prove his state of mind which can go towards purpose #1 of being racist or purpose #2 that he committed the crime?

I don't see how in your example using the statement for its truth is relevant unless you're trying to impeach for bias or something. Just looks more like circumstantial evidence for state of mind..

But, what I would do is, on an essay exam, write "Hearsay" as a header anyways and quickly identify and dismiss why it isn't relevant for the truth of the matter assert unless impeachment (or whatever)..