401 403 404 406 602 701 702 Jeopardy Template

(Blank)

100

Example: A witness says, “I heard three gunshots outside my bedroom window around midnight.”

Question: Is this speculation/lack of personal knowledge under FRE 602?

Answer: No.

Why: The witness personally heard the gunshots, so they have personal knowledge.

100

Example: A prosecutor wants to show the jury 40 graphic photographs of the same injury when three photographs clearly show it.

Question: Could this be unfairly prejudicial or needlessly cumulative under FRE 403?

Answer: Yes.

Why: The extra photographs add little information and could unfairly affect the jury or unnecessarily repeat evidence.

100

Example: A driver says, “Every single time I leave my driveway, I buckle my seat belt before putting the car in gear.”

Question: Is this habit evidence under FRE 406?

Answer: Yes.

Why: It is a specific action that the person regularly repeats.

100

Example: A witness says, “I saw the defendant punch him in the face.”

Question: Does this satisfy the personal knowledge requirement under FRE 602?

Answer: Yes.

Why: The witness personally saw the punch happen.

100

Example: The victim suffered one gunshot wound. The prosecutor wants to display an extremely graphic autopsy photograph even though several less graphic photographs clearly show the same injury.

Question: Could this be excluded as unfairly prejudicial or cumulative under FRE 403?

Answer: Yes.

Why: The small additional value of the graphic photograph could be substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or needless repetition.

200

Example: A witness sees a car speed past and says, “It looked like it was going about 70 mph.”

Question: Is this an improper lay opinion under FRE 701?

Answer: No.

Why: An ordinary witness can estimate speed based on what they personally observed.

200

Example: A defendant’s fingerprint is found on the inside of the broken window used to enter a burglarized house.

Question: Is this relevant evidence under FRE 401?

Answer: Yes.

Why: The fingerprint makes it more likely that the defendant was involved in the burglary.

200

Example: A doctor uses her medical training to explain that the victim’s injuries were caused by a blunt object.

Question: Is this proper expert testimony under FRE 702?

Answer: Yes.

Why: The doctor is using specialized medical knowledge to help the jury understand the injuries.

200

Example: The prosecution introduces one clear photograph showing the broken window where a burglar entered the house.

Question: Should this be excluded as unfairly prejudicial under FRE 403?

Answer: No.

Why: Evidence is not unfairly prejudicial just because it hurts one side’s case. Its value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

200

Example: A witness says, “I wasn’t at the party, but I’m positive Carlos started the fight.”

Question: Is this speculation/lack of personal knowledge under FRE 602?

Answer: Yes.

Why: The witness did not personally see or experience who started the fight.

300

Example: A store employee says, “Every night for six years, my manager checks the safe twice before locking it.”

Question: Is this habit evidence under FRE 406?

Answer: Yes.

Why: It is a specific action that the manager regularly repeats.

300

xample: A witness says, “I know Maria stole the purse because my cousin told me she did.”

Question: Is this speculation/lack of personal knowledge under FRE 602?

Answer: Yes.

Why: The witness did not personally see or experience the theft.

300

Example: A defendant is charged with robbery. The prosecutor wants to show that he stole a bicycle five years ago only to argue, “He’s a thief, so he probably committed this robbery.”

Question: Is this improper character/other-acts evidence under FRE 404?

Answer: Yes.

Why: A past bad act generally cannot be used just to say someone did something bad before, so they probably did it again.

300

Example: A witness says, “Sarah is a very careful person. She’s always responsible.”

Question: Is this habit evidence under FRE 406?

Answer: No.

Why: “Careful” and “responsible” describe general character traits, not a specific repeated action.

300

Example: A forensic scientist with specialized DNA training explains how DNA recovered from a crime scene was tested and compared.

Question: Is this proper expert testimony under FRE 702?

Answer: Yes.

Why: DNA testing involves specialized scientific knowledge that can help the jury understand the evidence.

400

Example: A defendant is charged with assault. The prosecutor says, “He’s known for being violent, so he probably attacked the victim.”

Question: Is this improper character evidence under FRE 404?

Answer: Yes.

Why: You generally cannot use someone’s character just to prove they acted that way this time.

400

Example: A defendant says he entered the wrong house by accident. Evidence shows that two days earlier he practiced opening that house’s unusual lock.

Question: Could this be a proper use of other-acts evidence under FRE 404?

Answer: Yes.

Why: It could show knowledge, planning, or absence of mistake instead of simply showing bad character.

400

Example: A witness watched two people arguing and says, “John looked really angry because he was yelling, pointing, and clenching his fists.”

Question: Is this a proper lay opinion under FRE 701?

Answer: Yes.

Why: The opinion is based on what the witness personally observed and does not require special training.

400

Example: A police officer with no specialized medical training says, “Based on looking at the victim, he definitely had internal bleeding.”

Question: Is this proper expert testimony under FRE 702?

Answer: No.

Why: The officer has not been shown to have the specialized medical knowledge needed to diagnose internal bleeding.

400

Example: A defendant is charged with assault. The prosecution wants to introduce evidence that he was in a fight three years ago only to prove, “He has a violent character, so he probably started this fight too.”

Question: Is this improper character/other-acts evidence under FRE 404?

Answer: Yes.

Why: The prosecution is using the old fight simply to show bad character and argue that the defendant acted the same way again.

500

Example: A trained accident reconstruction expert uses measurements from a crash scene to calculate the vehicle’s speed.

Question: Is this proper expert testimony under FRE 702?

Answer: Yes.

Why: The witness is using specialized training and knowledge to form the opinion.

500

Example: A witness with no medical training says, “That man definitely suffered a serious concussion.”

Question: Is this improper lay opinion under FRE 701?

Answer: Yes.

Why: Diagnosing a concussion requires specialized medical knowledge.

500

Example: A defendant is charged with stealing a car. The prosecutor wants to introduce evidence that the defendant’s favorite restaurant is Chick-fil-A.

Question: Is this irrelevant evidence under FRE 401?

Answer: Yes.

Why: His favorite restaurant does not make it more or less likely that he stole the car.

500

Example: A defendant is accused of damaging someone’s car. Ten minutes before the damage, he texted the owner, “I’m going to smash your windshield.”

Question: Is this relevant evidence under FRE 401?

Answer: Yes.

Why: The statement makes it more likely that the defendant intentionally damaged the car.

500

Example: A witness sees the defendant leave a bar after drinking. Ten minutes later, the witness hears tires screech and a crash around the corner. The witness never sees the accident but testifies, “The defendant was definitely the driver who caused the crash because he was drunk when he left.”

Question: Is the witness’s statement speculation/lack of personal knowledge under FRE 602?

Answer: Yes.

Why: The witness personally saw the defendant leave the bar, but did not see the accident or who was driving.

Simple explanation: The witness can testify about what they actually saw, but cannot fill in the missing pieces by guessing.