Multistate Essay Examination (MEE) 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 Multistate Essay Examination (MEE), not a summary of it.

1. 1

   Relevance and Its Limits

   4 topics

   • Logical and Legal Relevance
     • Rules 401-402
     • Rule 403 balancing
   • Character Evidence
     • Propensity prohibition
     • Defendant and victim character in criminal cases
   • Other Acts and Habit
     • Non-propensity purposes under 404(b)
     • Habit and routine practice
   • Public Policy Exclusions
     • Subsequent remedial measures
     • Settlements and offers to compromise
2. 2

   Witnesses and Impeachment

   4 topics

   • Competency and Personal Knowledge
   • Examination of Witnesses
   • Impeachment Methods
     • Prior inconsistent statements
     • Bias and contradiction
     • Conviction of crime under Rule 609
   • Opinion and Expert Testimony
     • Lay opinion
     • Daubert reliability
3. 3

   Hearsay

   5 topics

   • Definition of Hearsay
     • Out-of-court statement offered for its truth
     • Non-hearsay purposes
   • Statements Defined as Non-Hearsay
     • Prior statements of witnesses
     • Opposing party statements
   • Exceptions: Availability Immaterial
     • Present sense impression and excited utterance
     • State of mind and medical treatment
     • Business and public records
   • Exceptions: Declarant Unavailable
     • Former testimony and dying declarations
     • Statements against interest
     • Forfeiture by wrongdoing
   • Confrontation Clause
4. 4

   Privileges, Authentication, and Best Evidence

   4 topics

   • Privileges
     • Attorney-client and work product
     • Spousal privileges
   • Authentication and Identification
   • Best Evidence Rule
   • Judicial Notice and Presumptions

Evidence flashcards for Multistate Essay Examination (MEE)

22 of 59 cards from the Evidence deck — real questions with worked answers.

1. What is the FRE 401 standard for logical relevance?

   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 (any tendency + materiality). It is a very low bar.

2. Under FRE 403, when may relevant evidence be excluded (legal relevance)?

   When its probative value is SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWERED by danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. The balance tilts toward admission.

3. What is the general rule on using character evidence to prove conduct (propensity) in a civil case?

   Character evidence is generally INADMISSIBLE to prove a person acted in conformity with that character (propensity), unless character is an essential element of a claim or defense (e.g., defamation, negligent entrustment, child custody).

4. When and how may a criminal defendant first introduce character evidence about himself?

   The defendant may 'open the door' by offering evidence of a pertinent good character trait, but only through reputation or opinion testimony (not specific acts) under FRE 405(a).

5. Once a criminal defendant opens the door to his character, how may the prosecution rebut?

   The prosecution may cross-examine the defendant's character witness about relevant specific acts ('Did you know/have you heard...?') and may call its own reputation/opinion witnesses on that same trait.

6. When character IS an essential element, what forms of proof are allowed under FRE 405(b)?

   All three forms: reputation, opinion, AND specific instances of conduct. Specific acts are only allowed when character is an essential element of the charge, claim, or defense.

7. Under FRE 404(b), what are the permissible non-propensity uses of other crimes/acts (the MIMIC list)?

   Motive, Intent, absence of Mistake/accident, Identity, Common plan/scheme. Also opportunity, preparation, knowledge. Admissible if relevant to a material issue other than propensity and proven by sufficient evidence.

8. What is the standard of proof for admitting a 404(b) other act, and what limiting protection applies?

   The proponent needs only sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find the act occurred by a preponderance (conditional relevance, FRE 104(b)). On request, the court gives a limiting instruction, and 403 balancing still applies.

9. How is habit evidence (FRE 406) different from character evidence, and is it admissible?

   Habit is a person's regular, specific, semi-automatic response to a particular situation (e.g., always uses the handrail). It IS admissible to prove conduct in conformity, without corroboration or eyewitness, unlike general character.

10. Are subsequent remedial measures admissible, and for what limited purposes (FRE 407)?

    Inadmissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, defect, or need for a warning. Admissible for other purposes such as proving ownership/control, feasibility (if disputed), or impeachment.

11. Is evidence of settlement offers/negotiations admissible (FRE 408)?

    Inadmissible to prove validity/amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by prior inconsistent statement. There must be an actual dispute as to validity or amount. Admissible for other purposes (e.g., bias, witness interest).

12. Are offers to pay medical expenses admissible (FRE 409)?

    Offers (or actual payment) to pay an injured party's medical expenses are inadmissible to prove liability. Note: unlike Rule 408, accompanying statements/admissions of fault ARE admissible (only the offer itself is excluded).

13. What does FRE 411 say about liability insurance?

    Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is inadmissible to prove negligence or wrongful conduct. It is admissible for other purposes such as proving agency, ownership, control, or witness bias.

14. What plea-related statements are inadmissible under FRE 410?

    Withdrawn guilty pleas, nolo contendere pleas, statements made during plea proceedings, and statements made in plea negotiations with a prosecutor are inadmissible against the defendant.

15. What is the test for witness competency under the FRE?

    Every person is presumed competent. A witness must have personal knowledge (FRE 602) and must take an oath/affirmation to testify truthfully (FRE 603). The judge, not jurors of the case, decides competency.

16. What is the personal knowledge requirement (FRE 602)?

    A lay 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 (perceived it with their own senses). Does not apply to expert opinions under 703.

17. State the federal 'Dead Man's Statute' rule under the FRE.

    There is NO federal Dead Man's Statute. In federal diversity cases, state Dead Man's Statutes apply (which bar an interested party from testifying about communications/transactions with a now-deceased person).

18. When juror testimony is challenged, what may a juror testify about regarding deliberations (FRE 606(b))?

    A juror generally may NOT testify about deliberations or mental processes. Exceptions: extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought in, an outside influence was improperly brought to bear, a mistake was made entering the verdict on the form, or (per Pena-Rodriguez) clear racial animus.

19. What is the rule on leading questions on direct vs. cross-examination (FRE 611(c))?

    Leading questions are generally not allowed on direct examination but ARE allowed on cross-examination. Exceptions allowing leading on direct: hostile witnesses, adverse parties, and to develop preliminary/foundational matters.

20. What is the difference between refreshing recollection (FRE 612) and recorded recollection (FRE 803(5))?

    Refreshing recollection: a witness with no present memory reviews a writing to jog memory, then testifies from refreshed memory (writing is not evidence). Recorded recollection: if memory cannot be revived, a recorded statement made when fresh may be READ into evidence (a hearsay exception).

21. What is the scope of cross-examination under the FRE?

    Cross-examination is limited to the subject matter of direct examination and matters affecting the witness's credibility. The court has discretion to allow inquiry into additional matters as if on direct.

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

    (1) Prior inconsistent statements, (2) bias/interest/motive, (3) sensory or mental defects, (4) bad character for truthfulness via reputation/opinion, (5) prior convictions, (6) specific instances of untruthful conduct, and (7) contradiction.

See more Evidence flashcards →

Planning Evidence for Multistate Essay Examination (MEE)

Evidence (Multistate Essay Examination (MEE)) FAQ