עֵדוּת

Evidence

רלוונטיות, השמועה והחריגים שלה, עדויות אופי, הרשאות, הדחה והבחנות בקוד הראיות של קליפורניה.

פרק 11 שעה של קריאה32 שאלות תרגול

קרא את פרק 1 בחינם תרגול 10 שאלות

פרקים

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 דקותלְשַׁחְרֵר

איך קליפורניה שונה

מתוך פרק 1

CAהבחנה בקליפורניה

The one-word difference: “disputed”

כלל כללי (פדרלי / רוב)

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.

קליפורניה

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.

CAהבחנה בקליפורניה

FRE 403 and § 352

כלל כללי (פדרלי / רוב)

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.

קליפורניה

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.

CAהבחנה בקליפורניה

Preliminary facts under CEC §§ 400–405

כלל כללי (פדרלי / רוב)

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).

קליפורניה

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.

שיעורים

Hannah Park

מרצה עֵדוּת

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

המרצים שלנו הם אישיות הוראה בקול בינה מלאכותית; הדיוקנאות הם איורים.

שיעורי וידאו עבור עֵדוּת מוקלטים.

כל 13 הנושאים מ-‏249 ‏$ בחודש

שאלות בלתי מוגבלות של MBE וקליפורניה, סטים ולעגים מתוזמנים, משוב על חיבורי בינה מלאכותית, כל פרק כפי שהוא מתפרסם ותוכנית לימוד שנבנתה סביב תאריך הבחינה שלך.

ראה תוכניות