Bizonyíték

Evidence

Relevancia, hallomás és kivételei, jellemre vonatkozó bizonyítékok, kiváltságok, felelősségre vonás és a kaliforniai bizonyítékok kódexének megkülönböztetése.

1 fejezet1 óra olvasás32 gyakorlati kérdések

Olvassa el a 1 fejezetet ingyenesen Gyakorolj 10 kérdést

Fejezetek

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 minIngyenes

Miben különbözik Kalifornia

1. fejezetből

CAKaliforniai megkülönböztetés

The one-word difference: “disputed”

Általános szabály (szövetségi / többségi)

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.

Kalifornia

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.

CAKaliforniai megkülönböztetés

FRE 403 and § 352

Általános szabály (szövetségi / többségi)

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.

Kalifornia

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.

CAKaliforniai megkülönböztetés

Preliminary facts under CEC §§ 400–405

Általános szabály (szövetségi / többségi)

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).

Kalifornia

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.

Leckék

Hannah Park

Bizonyíték előadó

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

Előadóink mesterséges intelligenciával rendelkező oktatók; a portrék illusztrációk.

Az Bizonyíték videóleckék rögzítése folyamatban van.

Mind a 13 alany 249 $-tól havonta

Korlátlan számú MBE és kaliforniai kérdések, időzített sorozatok és gúnyok, mesterséges intelligencia-esszé visszajelzés, minden fejezet kiadásakor és a vizsga dátuma köré épülő tanulmányi terv.

Lásd a terveket