Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
US — Evidence (AI set 1) — US law flashcards · caselaw · US
Evidence · Evidence
US — Evidence (AI set 1)
US evidence under the Federal Rules — relevance, hearsay and its exceptions, character, privilege, and impeachment.
28 cards · tap a card to flip it
All cards in this deck
FRE 401 — what is the test 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. The threshold is deliberately low — even slight probative value satisfies FRE 401.
FRE 403 — when may a court exclude relevant evidence?
Under FRE 403, a court may exclude relevant evidence if 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. Exclusion is discretionary, not mandatory.
FRE 801(d)(2) — what makes a party-opponent's statement non-hearsay?
Under FRE 801(d)(2), an opposing party's own statement is defined as non-hearsay (an exclusion, not an exception) when offered against that party. The statement may be made by the party personally, by an authorized agent, or by a co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
FRE 803(2) — what is the excited utterance exception?
FRE 803(2) excepts from the hearsay rule a statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event. The declarant need not be unavailable, and the stress — not the mere timing — is the key requirement.
FRE 804(b)(2) — what are the requirements for the dying-declaration exception?
Under FRE 804(b)(2), a statement made by an unavailable declarant who believed death was imminent is admissible in a homicide prosecution or any civil action if it concerns the cause or circumstances of the declarant's believed impending death. The declarant need not actually die.
FRE 404(b) — propensity ban and permitted uses of prior bad acts
FRE 404(b)(1) bars evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts to prove a person's character and show action in conformity therewith. FRE 404(b)(2) permits the same evidence for non-propensity purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake.
FRE 609 — when are prior convictions admissible to impeach a witness?
Under FRE 609, a felony conviction (punishable by more than one year) is admissible to attack a witness's credibility subject to FRE 403 balancing for non-party witnesses, and a more stringent prejudice-outweighs-probative-value standard when the witness is the accused. Convictions involving dishonesty or false statement are automatically admissible regardless of the punishment.
FRE 1002 — what is the 'best evidence rule'?
FRE 1002 requires an original writing, recording, or photograph to prove its content; a copy or oral testimony about the content is generally inadmissible as a substitute. FRE 1003–1004 provide exceptions allowing duplicates or secondary evidence when the original is lost, destroyed, or otherwise unobtainable.
FRE 702 — what must a trial court find before admitting expert opinion testimony?
Under FRE 702, an expert's opinion is admissible only if: the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact; the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; it is the product of reliable principles and methods; and the expert has reliably applied those principles to the facts. The trial judge acts as gatekeeper to screen for both reliability and relevance.
FRE 801(c) — what two elements define hearsay?
Hearsay is (1) an out-of-court statement (2) offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. FRE 801(c). If a statement is offered for a non-truth purpose — such as to show its effect on the listener or to prove legally operative words — it is not hearsay and the rule does not bar it.
FRE 803(6) — what is the business records exception?
A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis is admissible if: kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity; it was the regular practice of that activity to make the record; the record was made at or near the time of the event by a person with knowledge; and the opponent does not show untrustworthiness. FRE 803(6). A qualified custodian or other qualified witness must lay the foundation, or it may be certified under FRE 902(11).
FRE 404(a)(2) — when may a criminal defendant offer character evidence about the victim?
In a criminal case, the defendant may offer evidence of a pertinent character trait of the alleged victim (e.g., a violent character in a self-defense case) under FRE 404(a)(2)(B). Once the defendant does so, the prosecution may rebut with evidence of the victim's same trait and may also offer evidence that the defendant has the same trait.
FRE 613 — how must prior inconsistent statements be used to impeach a witness?
Under FRE 613, a witness may be impeached with a prior inconsistent statement without first disclosing it, but opposing counsel must be given an opportunity to examine the statement on request. Extrinsic evidence of the prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny it and opposing counsel can examine on it, unless the court excuses this requirement in the interests of justice.
FRE 501 — what is the source of privilege rules in federal court?
FRE 501 provides that privilege in federal court is governed by the principles of the common law as interpreted by the courts in light of reason and experience. In civil cases where state law supplies the rule of decision, state privilege law applies. This means there is no single codified list of federal privileges; courts develop them case by case.
FRE 901(a) — what is the general standard for authenticating an item of evidence?
Under FRE 901(a), the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. Authentication is merely a prima facie showing — the jury ultimately decides genuineness. FRE 901(b) provides a non-exhaustive list of methods including testimony of a witness with knowledge and comparison by expert or trier of fact.
FRE 803(3) — what is the 'state of mind' hearsay exception?
FRE 803(3) excepts a statement of the declarant's then-existing state of mind (intent, plan, motive, emotion) or physical condition from the hearsay rule. The statement must reflect a then-existing mental state, not a belief about past facts. It is commonly used to prove future conduct through statements of present intent.
FRE 407 — are subsequent remedial measures admissible to prove negligence?
Under FRE 407, evidence of measures taken after an event that, if taken before, would have made the injury less likely to occur is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product or its design, or a need for a warning. However, the evidence may be admitted for other purposes such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures when those are controverted.
FRE 402 — what is the baseline admissibility rule for relevant evidence?
Relevant evidence is generally admissible; irrelevant evidence is not. Exclusion is proper only when the Constitution, a federal statute, the FRE, or other Supreme Court rules require it. FRE 402 codifies this general presumption of admissibility.
FRE 801(d)(1)(A) — when is a prior inconsistent statement substantive evidence, not merely impeachment?
A declarant-witness's prior inconsistent statement is excluded from hearsay (and thus usable as substantive evidence) only if it was made under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition. FRE 801(d)(1)(A) limits this exclusion to that formal-proceeding context.
FRE 803(1) — what distinguishes a present-sense impression from an excited utterance?
A present-sense impression (FRE 803(1)) is a statement describing or explaining an event made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it; no stress or excitement is required. An excited utterance (FRE 803(2)) requires a startling event and that the statement be made while the declarant was under its stress. The key distinction is the timing and emotional-state requirements.
FRE 404(a)(1) — may the prosecution offer character evidence about the defendant first?
Under FRE 404(a)(1), the prosecution may not initiate character evidence about the defendant's pertinent trait; it may only rebut after the defendant 'opens the door' by offering such evidence. Once the defendant does so, the prosecution may offer evidence of the same trait. This rule protects defendants from propensity reasoning unless they first place character at issue.
FRE 608(b) — may extrinsic evidence be used to prove a witness's specific bad act bearing on truthfulness?
No. Under FRE 608(b), a cross-examiner may inquire into specific instances of a witness's conduct bearing on character for truthfulness, but extrinsic evidence to prove those acts is not permitted. The cross-examiner is bound by the witness's answer.
FRE 801(d)(2)(E) — what must be shown for a co-conspirator statement to be non-hearsay?
A statement by a co-conspirator is not hearsay under FRE 801(d)(2)(E) if it was made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The court must find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conspiracy existed, the declarant and defendant were members, and the statement furthered it. The statement itself may be considered but is not alone sufficient to establish these facts.
FRE 602 — what is the personal-knowledge requirement for lay witness testimony?
FRE 602 requires that a lay witness testify only about matters within the witness's personal knowledge, established by sufficient evidence. This is distinct from FRE 702 expert testimony, which may rely on sources beyond direct perception. The proponent bears the burden of showing the witness has the requisite personal knowledge.
FRE 1004 — when may secondary evidence of a document's contents be admitted?
FRE 1004 allows secondary evidence (e.g., copies or testimony) to prove a document's contents when the original is lost or destroyed without bad faith, is unobtainable by judicial process, is in the opponent's possession and not produced, or relates only to a collateral matter. The best-evidence rule's demand for the original thus has enumerated exceptions.
FRE 407 — are subsequent remedial measures admissible to prove a product was defective at trial?
FRE 407 bars evidence of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a product defect, or need for a warning. However, such evidence may be admitted for other purposes, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautions if those are contested. The rule applies to measures taken after the harm that would have made it less likely to occur.
FRE 805 — how does the hearsay rule apply to 'hearsay within hearsay'?
FRE 805 provides that hearsay within hearsay (double hearsay) is admissible only if each layer of hearsay independently satisfies an exception or exclusion under the FRE. If any single layer lacks an applicable exception, the entire statement is inadmissible for the truth of the matter asserted. Courts must analyze each level separately.
FRE 803(8) — what makes a public record admissible as a hearsay exception?
FRE 803(8) excepts records of a public office that set out the office's activities, matters observed under a legal duty to report, or (in civil and against the government in criminal cases) factual findings from a legal investigation, provided the opponent does not show untrustworthiness. The exception rests on the assumption that public officials perform their duties properly and have no motive to fabricate.