Ubufakazi

Evidence

Ukuhambisana, inhlebo kanye nokuhlukile kwayo, ubufakazi bezinhlamvu, amalungelo, ukumbeka icala kanye nokwehlukaniswa kweKhodi Yobufakazi yaseCalifornia.

Isahluko 11 ihora lokufunda32 imibuzo yokuzijwayeza

Funda isahluko 1 mahhala Prakthiza imibuzo eyi-10

Izahluko

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 iminithiMahhala

I-California ihluke kanjani

Kusuka esahlukweni 1

CACalifornia umehluko

The one-word difference: “disputed”

Umthetho ojwayelekile (federal / iningi)

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.

California

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.

CACalifornia umehluko

FRE 403 and § 352

Umthetho ojwayelekile (federal / iningi)

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.

California

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.

CACalifornia umehluko

Preliminary facts under CEC §§ 400–405

Umthetho ojwayelekile (federal / iningi)

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).

California

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.

Izifundo

Hannah Park

Ubufakazi umfundisi

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

Abafundisi bethu bangabantu abafundisa ngezwi le-AI; izithombe ziyimifanekiso.

Izifundo zevidiyo ze-Ubufakazi ziyarekhodwa.

Zonke izifundo eziyi-13 kusuka ku-$249 ngenyanga

Imibuzo engenamkhawulo ye-MBE kanye ne-California, amasethi anesikhathi nokuklolodela, impendulo yendaba ye-AI, isahluko ngasinye njengoba sishicilelwa kanye nohlelo lokufunda olwakhelwe ngosuku lwakho lokuhlolwa.

Bona izinhlelo