适用于 2027年2月 · 2027年7月 · 2028年2月 · 2028年7月 起改为 NextGen

EVMBE作文占考试的 58%

证据法

Evidence

关联性、传闻证据及其例外、品格证据、特免权、弹劾证人,以及加州证据法典(Evidence Code)的差异。

1 章1 小时的阅读时间32 练习题


章节

  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.免费

加州有何不同

摘自第 1 章

CA加州差异

The one-word difference: “disputed”

一般规则(联邦 / 多数州)

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加州差异

FRE 403 and § 352

一般规则(联邦 / 多数州)

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加州差异

Preliminary facts under CEC §§ 400–405

一般规则(联邦 / 多数州)

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.


视频课

Hannah Park

证据法讲师

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

我们的讲师都是人工智能语音教学角色;肖像是插图。

正在录制 证据法 的视频课程。


全部 13 科,每月 $249 起

无限的 MBE 和加州问题、限时设置和模拟、AI 论文反馈、已发布的每一章以及围绕您的考试日期制定的学习计划。

查看方案