適用於 2027年2月 · 2027年7月 · 2028年2月 · 2028年7月 起改為 NextGen

EVMBE作文佔考試的 58%

證據法

Evidence

關聯性、傳聞證據及其例外、品格證據、特權、彈劾證人,以及加州證據法典(Evidence Code)的差異。

1 章1 小時的閱讀時間32 練習題


章節

  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.免費

加州有何不同

摘自第 1 章

CA加州差異

The one-word difference: “disputed”

一般規則(聯邦 / 多數州)

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.

加州

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加州差異

FRE 403 and § 352

一般規則(聯邦 / 多數州)

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.

加州

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加州差異

Preliminary facts under CEC §§ 400–405

一般規則(聯邦 / 多數州)

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).

加州

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.


影音課程

Hannah Park

證據法講師

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

我們的講師都是人工智慧語音教學角色;肖像是插圖。

正在錄製 證據法 的視訊課程。


全部 13 科,每月 $249 起

無限的 MBE 和加州問題、限時設定和模擬、AI 論文回饋、已發布的每一章以及圍繞您的考試日期制定的學習計劃。

查看方案