Evidence
Evidence tests relevance, hearsay, character, impeachment, privileges, expert testimony, and the burden of proof. The exam frequently asks whether a statement is hearsay, then whether an exemption or exception applies.
Core framework
Relevance requires probative value and materiality; Rule 403 excludes unfair prejudice. Character evidence is inadmissible to prove propensity, with exceptions for criminal defendants, victims, and witnesses. Habit is admissible. Subsequent remedial measures, settlement offers, and pleas are limited. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered for truth; exemptions include party-opponent and co-conspirator statements. Exceptions include present sense impression, excited utterance, then-existing condition, business records, public records, and judgments. Confrontation limits testimonial hearsay. Impeachment uses prior inconsistent statements, bias, conviction, and reputation. Expert testimony must be reliable and helpful.
Worked example
At Ben's trial for battery, W testifies, "Joe told me, 'Ben hit me.'" The statement is hearsay if offered to prove Ben hit Joe. It is not a party-opponent statement because Joe is not the defendant. If Joe is unavailable, it may qualify as an excited utterance if Joe was still under the stress of the event. If Joe testifies and denies it, the prior statement may be used for impeachment, but not substantively unless under oath and a prior inconsistent statement exception applies.
Traps
"Not hearsay" includes effect on listener and verbal acts. Multiple hearsay requires each layer to satisfy an exception. Character evidence is not admissible in civil cases to prove conduct. Convictions used for impeachment are subject to Rule 403. Testimonial hearsay requires confrontation unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity. Expert opinion cannot be used to tell the jury what result to reach.