L2_Relevance 요약영상

Relevance를 기억해 보세요. 룰 숫자의 종류는 이렇게 되어있습니다. 한 장의 사진을 변경해 봅시다. 그릇, 그리고 스케일을 변경해 봅시다. 모든 조건은 그릇입니다. 그릇은 파티가 증거의 벽에 넣기 위해 필요합니다. 그 벽에 들어가기 전에 두 개의 체크가 필요합니다. 첫째, 벽에 적용되나요? 그것은 로지컬의 Relevance입니다. 두 번째, 선수의 스케일이 그 벽에 적용되나요? 그것은 룰 403입니다. Let's start with Rule 401. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without it. Notice how low that bar is. A brick doesn't have to be the whole wall, it just has to add a little, but the brick has to belong to this wall. The fact it helps prove must be of consequence, which means it matters to a claim or a defense in this case. Here's an example. In a murder trial, the state shows that the day after the killing, the defendant fled the state under a false name. The defense says fleeing doesn't prove murder. And that's true, but it doesn't have to. Flight shows some consciousness of guilt, and guilt is what this case is about, so the brick goes in. If there's an innocent reason for running, that goes to weight, and weight is for the jury. It doesn't keep the brick out. Rule 402 sets the default. Relevant evidence comes in unless some other rule keeps it out. Irrelevant evidence never comes in. The judge has no discretion to admit a brick that doesn't fit. And once the brick fits, the burden flips. Now the objecting party has to point to a specific rule, like 403, hearsay, or a privilege. So let's put the brick on the judge's scale. On one side is its probative value. On the other side is the danger. unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly cumulative evidence. Here's the key word. The judge may exclude it only if the danger substantially outweighs the probative value. So a close call stays in, even a tie stays in, substantially works in only one direction, toward exclusion. And notice the word unfair. All good evidence hurts the other side. That's not the problem. The problem is evidence that invites the jury to decide on emotion or on a bad person shortcut. Picture a murder trial where the state offers 10 graphic autopsy photos, but nobody disputes how the victim died. The defense is, you've got the wrong person. The photos add very little on the real issue, and they pull hard on emotion. So the judge may keep them out or let in just one or two. And because this is the trial judge's call, it's reviewed only for abuse of discretion. One famous case shows how the scale works when there's a safer option. It's Old Chief vs. United States from 1997. Old Chief was charged with being a felon in possession of a gun. His earlier conviction was for assault causing serious bodily injury. He offered to stipulate, to simply admit that he was a convicted felon. The prosecution refused and wanted the jury to hear exactly what the old crime was. The Supreme Court said refusing the stipulation was an abuse of discretion. It proved felon status just as well, with far less unfair prejudice, because the name of a violent crime invites the jury to think, he did it before. Keep it narrow, though. It applies when the prior is offered only to prove that status. Finally, California adds three twists. First, Evidence Code Section 210 says the fact must be disputed. Say a driver admits she was driving, but the plaintiff still calls three witnesses to prove it. Under the federal rules, that's still relevant, so you'd attack it under 403 as cumulative. In California, you can argue it isn't relevant at all, because nobody disputes it. Second, Section 352 is California's version of 403, with the same substantially outweighed test. And it survives Proposition 8. So even though Prop. 8 lets nearly all relevant evidence in at a criminal trial, a 352 objection still works. Third, Section 1160. In a civil accident case, an expression of sympathy can't be used to prove liability. So if a driver says, I'm so sorry you're hurt, I never even saw the stop sign, you split the sentence. The sorry part stays out. The admission of fault comes in. The federal rules have no such shield, so the whole statement comes in, subject to 403. So here's the whole picture. First, the brick. Does it make a fact of consequence a little more or less likely? And in California, is that fact disputed? Then, the scale. Does the danger substantially outweigh the value? If not, it comes in. Don't memorize it, just ask, brick then scale.