Master of Laws (LLM) Evidence and Property Law Syllabus

Evidence and Property Law syllabus — full chapter and topic list

Expand any chapter to see its topics and sub-topics. This is the whole examinable outline for Evidence and Property Law in Master of Laws (LLM), not a summary of it.

1. 1

   Relevance and Admissibility

   3 topics

   • Relevance Standards
     • Logical and legal relevance
     • Rule 403 balancing of probative value vs. prejudice
   • Character Evidence and Prior Bad Acts
   • Habit, Subsequent Remedial Measures, and Policy Exclusions
2. 2

   Witnesses, Hearsay, and Authentication

   4 topics

   • The Hearsay Rule
     • Definition and non-hearsay uses
     • Exceptions: present sense impression, excited utterance, business records
     • Confrontation Clause and testimonial statements
   • Competency, Impeachment, and Rehabilitation of Witnesses
   • Lay and Expert Opinion Testimony (Daubert)
   • Privileges and Authentication of Evidence
3. 3

   Ownership and Estates in Land

   3 topics

   • Present and Future Interests
     • Fee simple, life estates, and defeasible fees
     • Remainders, reversions, and executory interests
     • Rule against perpetuities
   • Concurrent Ownership: Joint Tenancy and Tenancy in Common
   • Landlord-Tenant Law and Leasehold Interests
4. 4

   Conveyancing and Land Use

   4 topics

   • Transfers of Real Property
     • Deeds, delivery, and recording acts
     • Title assurance and the bona fide purchaser
   • Easements, Covenants, and Servitudes
   • Mortgages and Security Interests in Real Estate
   • Adverse Possession and Zoning

Evidence and Property Law flashcards for Master of Laws (LLM)

23 of 59 cards from the Evidence and Property Law deck — real questions with worked answers.

1. Under FRE 401, what is the test for whether evidence is relevant?

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

2. Under FRE 403, when may a court exclude relevant evidence?

   When its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

3. What is the general rule on admissibility of character evidence under FRE 404(a)?

   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 (propensity).

4. Under FRE 404(b), for what non-propensity purposes may prior bad acts be admitted?

   For purposes such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident (mnemonic: MIMIC / KIPPOMIA).

5. In a criminal case, who may first open the door to a defendant's character evidence and how is it proved?

   The defendant may introduce evidence of a pertinent good character trait; under FRE 405(a) it is proved by reputation or opinion testimony. Once opened, the prosecution may rebut, including with specific-act cross-examination.

6. When is character provable by specific instances of conduct under FRE 405(b)?

   Only when a person's character or character trait is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense (e.g., defamation, negligent entrustment, entrapment).

7. Under FRE 413-415, how is the propensity bar modified in sexual-assault and child-molestation cases?

   Evidence of the defendant's prior similar sexual-assault or child-molestation offenses IS admissible and may be considered for any matter, including propensity to commit the charged offense.

8. Under FRE 406, how does habit evidence differ from character evidence in admissibility?

   Habit (a person's regular, semi-automatic response to a specific situation) and an organization's routine practice ARE admissible to prove conduct in conformity, and need no corroboration or eyewitness.

9. Under FRE 407, why are subsequent remedial measures excluded, and for what purposes may they still be admitted?

   Excluded to encourage safety improvements; not admissible to prove negligence, defect, or need for warning. They may be admitted to prove ownership, control, or feasibility (if disputed), or for impeachment.

10. Under FRE 408, what does the compromise-offers exclusion bar?

    Evidence of offering, accepting, or promising consideration to compromise a disputed claim—and statements made during negotiations—is inadmissible to prove validity/amount of the claim or to impeach by prior inconsistent statement.

11. Under FRE 409 and 411, what two policy exclusions apply to payments and insurance?

    FRE 409: offers to pay medical/hospital expenses are not admissible to prove liability. FRE 411: evidence of liability insurance is not admissible to prove negligence/wrongdoing (but may show agency, ownership, control, or bias).

12. What is the definition of hearsay under FRE 801(c)?

    An out-of-court statement (oral, written, or assertive conduct by a declarant) offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

13. Name three categories of out-of-court statements that are NOT hearsay because not offered for their truth.

    Statements offered to show effect on the listener, verbal acts/legally operative words (e.g., contract terms, defamation), and circumstantial evidence of the declarant's state of mind or knowledge.

14. Under FRE 801(d)(1), which prior statements of a testifying witness are defined as non-hearsay?

    Prior inconsistent statements made under oath at a proceeding, prior consistent statements offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication/improper motive or to rehabilitate, and statements of prior identification.

15. Under FRE 801(d)(2), what are the categories of opposing-party statements (admissions)?

    The party's own statement, an adopted statement, an authorized statement, a statement by an agent/employee on a matter within scope during employment, and a co-conspirator's statement made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

16. Which hearsay exceptions under FRE 803 do NOT require the declarant to be unavailable? Name four.

    Present sense impression, excited utterance, then-existing mental/emotional/physical condition, statements for medical diagnosis/treatment, recorded recollection, and business/public records (among others).

17. Compare present sense impression and excited utterance under FRE 803(1)-(2).

    Present sense impression: describes an event while or immediately after perceiving it (no stress required). Excited utterance: relates to a startling event made while under the stress of excitement it caused (timing more flexible if stress persists).

18. Under FRE 804, which hearsay exceptions require the declarant to be unavailable? Name four.

    Former testimony, dying declaration (statement under belief of imminent death), statement against interest, statement of personal/family history, and statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused the declarant's unavailability (forfeiture).

19. What are the requirements for the dying-declaration exception under FRE 804(b)(2)?

    Declarant must be unavailable, believe death is imminent, and the statement must concern the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death. Admissible in civil cases and homicide prosecutions only.

20. What does the Confrontation Clause (Crawford v. Washington) bar in criminal cases?

    Admission of testimonial hearsay against a criminal defendant unless the declarant is unavailable AND the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine, regardless of any hearsay exception.

21. Under FRE 601, what is the modern rule on witness competency?

    Every person is presumed competent to be a witness. The witness need only have personal knowledge (FRE 602) and take an oath/affirmation to testify truthfully (FRE 603).

22. List the major methods of impeaching a witness's credibility.

    Prior inconsistent statements, bias/interest/motive, sensory/mental defect, bad character for truthfulness (reputation/opinion or specific acts), prior convictions, and contradiction.

23. Under FRE 609, when may a prior conviction be used to impeach?

    Any crime involving a dishonest act/false statement is automatically admissible (no balancing). Other felonies: admissible subject to FRE 403 balancing (or a special heightened test if the witness is the criminal defendant). Convictions older than 10 years are generally inadmissible.

See more Evidence and Property Law flashcards →

Planning Evidence and Property Law for Master of Laws (LLM)

Evidence and Property Law (Master of Laws (LLM)) FAQ