2027年2月 · 2027年7月 · 2028年2月に適用されます · 2028年7月からNextGen

EVMBE試験のエッセイ 58%

証拠法

Evidence

関連性、伝聞証拠とその例外、性格証拠、証言拒絶特権、弾劾、カリフォルニア証拠法典(Evidence Code)独自のルール。

1章1時間の読書32 の練習問題


章

  1. 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.無料

カリフォルニアの違い

1章より

CAカリフォルニア独自のルール

The one-word difference: “disputed”

一般規則(連邦・多数決)

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.

カリフォルニア

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.

CAカリフォルニア独自のルール

FRE 403 and § 352

一般規則(連邦・多数決)

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.

カリフォルニア

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.

CAカリフォルニア独自のルール

Preliminary facts under CEC §§ 400–405

一般規則(連邦・多数決)

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).

カリフォルニア

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.


講義

Hannah Park

証拠法講師

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

私たちの講師は AI 音声の教育ペルソナです。肖像画はイラストです。

証拠法のビデオレッスンが録画されています。


全13科目、月額 $249 から

無制限の MBE およびカリフォルニアの問題、時間指定されたセットと模擬、AI エッセイのフィードバック、公開されたすべての章、および試験日を中心に構築された学習計画。

プランを見る