Evidence: Relevance, Hearsay, and Impeachment
What the exam tests
Evidence questions test the Federal Rules: relevance, character evidence, hearsay and its exceptions, impeachment, privileges, expert testimony, and the best evidence rule. Minnesota follows comparable rules, but apply the stated rule set.
Core rules
- Relevance: evidence must make a fact more or less probable and be of consequence. Rule 403 excludes if probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time.
- Character evidence: generally inadmissible to prove conduct, but permitted for motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake. Character is substantive in defamation, child custody, and similar cases.
- Hearsay: out-of-court statement offered for its truth. Nonhearsay uses include impeachment, effect on listener, and verbal acts.
- Exemptions and exceptions: party-opponent statements; present sense impression; excited utterance; then-existing state of mind; business records; public records; ancient documents; learned treatises.
- Impeachment: bias, sensory deficiency, prior inconsistent statements, conviction of crime, and reputation for truthfulness. Prior inconsistent statements under oath at a prior proceeding are substantive.
- Expert testimony: qualification, reliable methodology, helpfulness; Daubert applies in federal court.
Worked example
In an assault trial, the victim's friend testifies that the victim said, He threatened me yesterday. If offered to prove the threat was made, it is hearsay. If offered to show the victim's fear and why the victim acted defensively, it is not hearsay because it is offered for state of mind, not truth. The court may still exclude under 403.
Traps
Do not call every out-of-court statement hearsay; check the purpose. Business records require a foundation of regular practice. Prior inconsistent statements are usually impeachment only unless under oath.