Juris Doctor (JD) Evidence Syllabus

Evidence syllabus — full chapter and topic list

Expand any chapter to see its topics and sub-topics. This is the whole examinable outline for Evidence in Juris Doctor (JD), not a summary of it.

1. 1

   Relevance and Its Limits

   3 topics

   • Logical and Legal Relevance
     • Relevance under Rules 401 and 402
     • Rule 403 balancing: prejudice, confusion, waste of time
   • Character Evidence
     • The character propensity ban under Rule 404
     • Permitted uses: motive, intent, identity (MIMIC)
     • Methods of proving character and habit
   • Specialized Relevance Rules
     • Subsequent remedial measures and settlement offers
     • Liability insurance and plea discussions
2. 2

   Witnesses and Impeachment

   3 topics

   • Competency and Examination
     • Personal knowledge and oath requirements
     • Leading questions and refreshing recollection
   • Impeachment
     • Prior inconsistent statements and bias
     • Conviction of crimes under Rule 609
     • Specific instances of conduct and reputation for truthfulness
   • Opinion and Expert Testimony
     • Lay opinion testimony
     • Expert qualifications and reliability (Daubert)
     • Bases of expert opinion
3. 3

   Hearsay

   4 topics

   • Defining Hearsay
     • Out-of-court statement offered for its truth
     • Non-hearsay uses and statements
   • Exclusions from Hearsay
     • Prior statements by witnesses
     • Opposing party statements and admissions
   • Hearsay Exceptions
     • Exceptions where availability is immaterial (Rule 803)
     • Exceptions requiring unavailability (Rule 804)
     • The residual exception
   • Confrontation Clause and Hearsay
     • Testimonial statements (Crawford)
     • Forfeiture by wrongdoing
4. 4

   Privileges and Documentary Evidence

   3 topics

   • Privileges
     • Attorney-client privilege and work product
     • Spousal privileges
     • Physician, psychotherapist, and clergy privileges
   • Authentication and Best Evidence
     • Authentication of documents and real evidence
     • Self-authenticating documents
     • The best evidence (original document) rule
   • Judicial Notice and Presumptions
     • Judicial notice of adjudicative facts
     • Burdens of proof and presumptions

Evidence flashcards for Juris Doctor (JD)

22 of 69 cards from the Evidence deck — real questions with worked answers.

1. Under FRE 401, what is the two-part test for relevant evidence?

   Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence (probative value), AND that fact is of consequence in determining the action (materiality).

2. What is the distinction between 'logical relevance' and 'legal relevance' under the FRE?

   Logical relevance (FRE 401) asks whether evidence has any tendency to prove a material fact. Legal relevance (FRE 403) asks whether the probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, allowing exclusion of otherwise logically relevant evidence.

3. State the FRE 403 balancing test.

   A court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. The balance favors admissibility.

4. What is the general rule on admissibility of relevant vs. irrelevant evidence under FRE 402?

   Relevant evidence is admissible unless otherwise excluded by the Constitution, a federal statute, the FRE, or other Supreme Court rules. Irrelevant evidence is never admissible.

5. Under FRE 404(a), what is the general prohibition on character evidence in civil and criminal cases?

   Evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with that character (i.e., propensity reasoning is barred).

6. What are the 'mercy rule' exceptions allowing character evidence about the accused in a criminal case (FRE 404(a)(2))?

   A criminal defendant may offer evidence of his own pertinent good character trait; if he does, the prosecution may rebut. The defendant may also offer evidence of a victim's pertinent trait, opening the door for the prosecution to rebut and to offer the same trait of the defendant.

7. How may character be proved when character is an essential element of a claim or defense (e.g., defamation, negligent entrustment)?

   Under FRE 405(b), when character is an essential element, it may be proved by specific instances of conduct, in addition to reputation and opinion testimony.

8. Under FRE 405(a), what methods of proving character are allowed when character evidence is admissible (but not an essential element)?

   Reputation and opinion testimony only. On cross-examination of a character witness, the court may allow inquiry into relevant specific instances of conduct.

9. List the permissible non-propensity purposes for prior bad acts under FRE 404(b) (the 'MIMIC'/MOIPP purposes).

   Motive, Intent, absence of Mistake/accident, Identity, common plan or scheme/preparation, opportunity, knowledge. Other-acts evidence is admissible for these non-character purposes, not to show propensity.

10. What is the standard of proof for admitting other-acts evidence under FRE 404(b) per Huddleston v. United States?

    The proponent need only present evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the act occurred; the judge does not have to find it actually occurred.

11. Under FRE 413-415, what special character rule applies in sexual assault and child molestation cases?

    In cases involving sexual assault or child molestation, evidence of the defendant's commission of other such offenses is admissible and may be considered for any relevant matter, including propensity (subject to FRE 403).

12. Under FRE 407, are subsequent remedial measures admissible, and for what purposes may they be used?

    Subsequent remedial measures are not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a product defect, or a need for a warning. They may be admissible for other purposes such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility (if disputed), or impeachment.

13. Under FRE 408, what is the rule on compromise offers and negotiations?

    Offers to compromise a disputed claim, and statements made during compromise negotiations, are inadmissible to prove or disprove the validity or amount of the claim or to impeach by prior inconsistent statement. There must be a disputed claim.

14. Under FRE 409, are offers to pay medical expenses admissible?

    Evidence of offering or paying medical, hospital, or similar expenses resulting from an injury is not admissible to prove liability. Unlike FRE 408, accompanying admissions of fact are NOT protected.

15. Under FRE 411, when, if ever, is evidence of liability insurance admissible?

    Evidence that a person was or was not insured is not admissible to prove negligence or wrongful conduct, but may be admitted for other purposes such as proving agency, ownership, control, or witness bias.

16. Under FRE 410, what plea-related statements are inadmissible?

    Withdrawn guilty pleas, nolo contendere pleas, statements made during plea proceedings, and statements made during plea negotiations with the prosecutor that do not result in a guilty plea are inadmissible against the defendant who made them.

17. What is the rape shield rule under FRE 412 and its exceptions?

    In sexual misconduct cases, evidence of a victim's other sexual behavior or sexual predisposition is generally inadmissible. Criminal exceptions: specific instances to show another source of physical evidence, prior acts with the accused to prove consent, and where exclusion would violate the defendant's constitutional rights.

18. Under FRE 601 and 602, what are the basic requirements of witness competency and personal knowledge?

    Every person is presumed competent to be a witness (FRE 601). A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter (FRE 602).

19. Under FRE 603, what must a witness do before testifying?

    A witness must give an oath or affirmation to testify truthfully, in a form designed to impress that duty on the witness's conscience.

20. Under FRE 605 and 606, what is the rule about the presiding judge and jurors as witnesses?

    The presiding judge may not testify as a witness at the trial (FRE 605, no objection needed). A juror may not testify before the jury at trial (FRE 606(a)), and is generally barred from testifying about deliberations to impeach the verdict (FRE 606(b)), with narrow exceptions.

21. What are the three FRE 606(b) exceptions allowing juror testimony to impeach a verdict?

    A juror may testify about: (1) extraneous prejudicial information improperly brought to the jury's attention; (2) an outside influence improperly brought to bear; and (3) a mistake in entering the verdict on the verdict form. (Pena-Rodriguez adds clear racial bias.)

22. Under FRE 611, what is the general rule on leading questions?

    Leading questions should not be used on direct examination except as necessary to develop testimony. They are permitted on cross-examination and when examining a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party.

See more Evidence flashcards →

Planning Evidence for Juris Doctor (JD)

Evidence (Juris Doctor (JD)) FAQ