Evidència

Evidence

Rellevància, oïda i les seves excepcions, proves de caràcter, privilegis, destitució i distincions del codi de proves de Califòrnia.

Capítol 11 hora de lectura32 preguntes pràctiques

Llegiu el capítol 1 gratuïtament Practica 10 preguntes

Capítols

1Foundations: Relevance, Exclusion and the California OverlayThe first three steps of every Evidence question: whether the evidence is relevant under FRE 401 or Cal. Evid. Code § 210, whether the judge may still exclude it under FRE 403 or § 352, and how Proposition 8 changes the analysis in a California criminal case. The chapter also covers preliminary facts, limited admissibility and the rule of completeness, and previews the six-step template used in every California Evidence essay.58 minGratuït

Com es diferencia Califòrnia

Del capítol 1

CAdistinció de Califòrnia

The one-word difference: “disputed”

Regla general (federal / majoria)

FRE 401 asks only whether the fact is of consequence. A stipulated or uncontested fact is still of consequence, so evidence about it stays relevant. Any objection must come under FRE 403.

Califòrnia

Cal. Evid. Code § 210 requires a disputed fact of consequence. Once a fact is stipulated or not in dispute, evidence offered only to prove it is irrelevant and inadmissible under § 350, before any § 352 balancing.

If the call names the CEC, write “disputed fact of consequence” and check whether any fact has been stipulated. If the call is silent, apply FRE 401 and mention § 210 only when a stipulation changes the result.

CAdistinció de Califòrnia

FRE 403 and § 352

Regla general (federal / majoria)

FRE 403: the court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a listed danger. The dangers are unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time and needless cumulative evidence.

Califòrnia

Cal. Evid. Code § 352: the same balance in California words. The court may exclude evidence whose probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability of undue consumption of time. The same applies to a substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusion or misleading the jury.

The outcomes match, so the distinction is vocabulary. In a CEC answer write “undue prejudice” and “§ 352”; in an FRE answer write “unfair prejudice” and “Rule 403”. In a California criminal case, § 352 is the rule that still lets the judge exclude evidence after Proposition 8.

CAdistinció de Califòrnia

Preliminary facts under CEC §§ 400–405

Regla general (federal / majoria)

FRE 104 has two boxes. Under 104(a) the judge decides admissibility facts by a preponderance. Under 104(b) facts of conditional relevance go to the jury on evidence sufficient to support a finding. Whether a declarant was the party’s agent or co-conspirator is a 104(a) question (Bourjaily).

Califòrnia

The CEC uses the same split: § 403 facts go to the jury on sufficient evidence, and § 405 facts go to the judge. But for authorized and co-conspirator admissions, §§ 1222(b) and 1223(c) require only evidence sufficient to sustain a finding.

The practical difference is vicarious admissions. Under the FRE the judge must be persuaded of the agency or conspiracy. Under the CEC the proponent needs only enough evidence for a reasonable finding. Write § 403 or § 405 by name when the call is CEC.

Lliçons

Hannah Park

Professor Evidència

Former Deputy District Attorney (Orange County), now trial consultant; Korean-American, bilingual.

Els nostres professors són persones docents amb veu d'IA; els retrats són il·lustracions.

S'estan gravant les lliçons de vídeo per a Evidència.

Les 13 assignatures a partir de 249 $ al mes

Preguntes MBE i Califòrnia il·limitades, conjunts cronometrats i simulacres, comentaris d'assaigs d'IA, cada capítol tal com es publica i un pla d'estudi construït al voltant de la data de l'examen.

Veure plànols