2027년 2월 · 2027년 7월 · 2028년 2월에 적용 · 2028년 7월에서 NextGen

EVMBE시험의 58% 에세이

증거법

Evidence

관련성, 전문증거와 그 예외, 성격증거, 증언거부특권, 탄핵, 캘리포니아 증거법(Evidence Code)의 차이점.

1챕터1시간의 독서32 연습 문제


장

  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.무료

캘리포니아의 차이점

1장에서

CA캘리포니아 차이점

The one-word difference: “disputed”

일반 규칙(연방/다수)

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.

캘리포니아

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.

CA캘리포니아 차이점

FRE 403 and § 352

일반 규칙(연방/다수)

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.

캘리포니아

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.

CA캘리포니아 차이점

Preliminary facts under CEC §§ 400–405

일반 규칙(연방/다수)

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).

캘리포니아

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.


강의

Hannah Park

증거법 강사

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

우리 강사는 AI 음성 교육 페르소나입니다. 초상화는 삽화입니다.

증거법의 동영상 강의를 녹화하고 있습니다.


13개 과목 전체, 월 $249부터

무제한 MBE 및 캘리포니아 문제, 시간 제한 세트 및 모의, AI 에세이 피드백, 게시되는 모든 장 및 시험 날짜에 맞춰 작성된 학습 계획.

요금제 보기