5207685
EVIDENCE MINDMAP
- No, then stop.
- Yes, then
proceed
- Is this a motion in Limine?
- No, then proceed
- Yes, use these motions to get in evidence
you want to use during trial & exclude those
you do not. Motion to surpress is an
example of one.
- Is it relevant? It is relevant if it
passes the next two tests
- 402 Test: Does the evidence have any
tendency to make a fact
more or less probable than it
would be without the
evidence?
- No, then stop.
- Yes, then proceed.
- 401 Test: Is the fact is of
consequence in
determining the action?
- No, then stop
- Yes, then
proceed - This
evidence is
RELEVANT.
- So the evidence is
relevant. BUT is it
prejudicial. Follow the
next test.
- RULE 403: the judge MAY exclude if the evidence's
probativevalue is substantially outweighed by danger of
unfair prejudice confusing issues/misleading jury undue
delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
evidence
- No, then
stop. Exclude.
- Consider the factors: (1) Extent to
which evidence arouses emotions
or irrational prejudices (2) Extent to
which jury may overvalue
evidence (3) Strength of connection
between evidence and elements
of case (4) Whether same facts can
be proven by less prejudicial or
confusing means (5) Whether it
would be possible to reduce
prejudice or other harm once
evidence is introduced by
redacting prejudicial components
- Yes, then proceed.
- So the evidence is not unfairly prejudicial.
Are there any alternative rules?
- Does this involve a
subsequent remedial
measures?
- No, then move on to orange.
- Yes, then move downward.
- Do the subsequent remedial
measures attempt to prove (1)
Negligence (2) Culpable Conduct
(3) Defect in a product or (4) its
design?
- Yes, then exclude.
under RULE 407
- No
- Would this evidence be used for
the purposes of (1) impeachment
(2) showiing ownership/control or
(3) feasibility?
- This evidence would be
admissible but make
sure to get a limiting
instruction under rule
105
- This evidence would be
admissible but make
sure to get a limiting
instruction under rule
105
- Would this evidence be used for
the purposes of (1) impeachment
(2) showiing ownership/control or
(3) feasibility?
- Yes, then exclude.
under RULE 407
- Do the subsequent remedial
measures attempt to prove (1)
Negligence (2) Culpable Conduct
(3) Defect in a product or (4) its
design?
- No, then move on to orange.
- Does this involve a
subsequent remedial
measures?
- So the evidence is not unfairly prejudicial.
Are there any alternative rules?
- Yes, then proceed.
- No, then
stop. Exclude.
- RULE 403: the judge MAY exclude if the evidence's
probativevalue is substantially outweighed by danger of
unfair prejudice confusing issues/misleading jury undue
delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
evidence
- So the evidence is
relevant. BUT is it
prejudicial. Follow the
next test.
- No, then stop
- 401 Test: Is the fact is of
consequence in
determining the action?
- No, then stop.
- 402 Test: Does the evidence have any
tendency to make a fact
more or less probable than it
would be without the
evidence?
- Is it relevant? It is relevant if it
passes the next two tests
- No, then proceed
- Is this a motion in Limine?
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.