Relevance
The prosecution wants to introduce a photo of the defendant wearing a T-shirt that says “I love chaos.” It has nothing to do with the charged robbery but “shows his vibe.”
What is irrelevant evidence under 401?
A defendant charged with fraud offers testimony from a coworker that he is “an honest person.”
What is permissible use of the Mercy Rule (404(a)(2)(A))?
A police officer testifies, “Right after the mugging, the victim pointed at a man in a lineup and said, ‘That’s him.’”
What is a prior identification under 801(d)(1)(C)?
A witness testifies, “The defendant looked drunk.”
What is a permissible lay opinion based on perception?
Defendant in a battery case offers evidence that the victim once attacked someone else in a bar fight. Offered to show the victim “has a violent character.”
What is inadmissible 404(a) propensity evidence—not offered under any Mercy Rule exception?
In a slip-and-fall case, the plaintiff offers evidence that the store had been sued three times before for unsafe floors. It’s offered to show the store acted negligently this time.
What is inadmissible because the fact of past lawsuits is irrelevant to whether negligence occurred in this incident?
A witness has a prior conviction for embezzlement from three years ago. The opposing party wants to introduce it solely to attack credibility.
What is mandatory admissibility under 609(a)(2)?
A missing person left a note saying, “I’m going to meet Alex tonight.” It’s offered to show she actually went to meet Alex.
What is a Hillmon-type 803(3) state-of-mind statement?
A lay business owner testifies about “the market value” of inventory destroyed in a fire.
What is admissible under the lay-opinion rule allowing owners to testify to value?
In a homicide trial, the prosecution wants to introduce:
A neighbor’s statement: “I heard the victim scream, ‘He’s stabbing me!’”
A text from the victim earlier: “If anything happens to me, look at Dan.”
The defendant’s prior conviction for assault to show propensity.
An expert using an untested knife-pattern algorithm.
What are:
Excited utterance (803(2));
Hearsay barred—past belief, not state of mind under 803(3);
Improper 404(a) propensity evidence;
Likely inadmissible expert testimony under Daubert?
The defendant offers a stipulation admitting he was a convicted felon, but the prosecution insists on showing the jury the specific conviction for “aggravated battery.”
What is the situation governed by Old Chief can law, where the details of the prior conviction are inadmissible under 403?
What is inadmissible?
In a negligent entrustment case, the plaintiff seeks to offer evidence that the driver had a history of reckless behavior.
What is permissible specific-acts evidence because character is an element under 405(b)?
The prosecution introduces a sworn affidavit from a witness who does not appear at trial, identifying the defendant as the shooter.
What is testimonial hearsay barred by the Sixth Amendment without prior cross-examination?
An expert fire investigator testifies about the cause of a house fire using accepted methodology and published standards.
What is admissible expert testimony under 702 and Daubert?
In a homicide case, prosecution offers:
Victim’s voicemail: “I’m heading to meet Jason—he scares me.”
Detective’s report summarizing interviews with three witnesses.
Defendant’s prior assault conviction.
Not admissible—fear ≠ state-of-mind showing future intent (803(3) bar on memory/belief).
Hearsay within hearsay unless each layer satisfied, often testimonial for 6th Amendment.
404(b) impermissible unless for non-propensity purpose (motive, identity).
The defense wants to introduce evidence that, two years after the alleged arson, the same building caught fire again. They offer it to show that “the building just burns easily.”
What is irrelevant because subsequent events do not make the earlier charged act more or less probable, and alternatively excludable under 403 for confusing causation?
Defendant offers evidence that he is “deeply religious” to show he was unlikely to commit fraud.
What is inadmissible because the trait is not pertinent under 404(a)(2)(A)?
Defendant offers evidence that the police department involved has a documented history of discrimination. The evidence is offered to show the police “were motivated to fabricate evidence” in this case.
What is irrelevant propensity evidence about third parties unless tied to specific bias toward THIS defendant, and thus excludable as unfair prejudice under 403?*
A lay witness tries to testify, “Based on skid-mark analysis, the car must have been traveling at 78 mph.”
What is impermissible lay opinion because it requires specialized knowledge?
Civil arson case. Plaintiff seeks to introduce:
• A neighbor’s statement during the fire: “I think I saw the defendant pour gasoline an hour ago.”
• Fire investigator’s expert testimony using a technique with general acceptance but a 40% error rate.
• Evidence that defendant lied on unrelated tax filings to show “dishonesty.”
• Statistical evidence that 90% of fires in the neighborhood are caused by electrical faults.
What is:
• Not a present sense impression (speculation) and possibly hearsay without exception.
• Potentially inadmissible under Daubert—high known error rate undermines reliability.
• Inadmissible specific-act character evidence under 404(a) + 608(b) bar on extrinsic evidence.
• Irrelevant and misleading under 403 because neighborhood statistics don’t show causation here.
In a murder trial, the prosecution seeks to show the jury a “day-in-the-life” video of the victim’s family mourning at the funeral to explain the “impact of the crime.”
What is irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial under 403?
A character witness testifies that the defendant “has a reputation for honesty.” On cross, prosecution asks, “Did you know he was sued for breach of contract last year?”
What is impermissible because civil breach-of-contract claims are not specific acts probative of truthfulness under 608(b)?
A dying declaration says: “I think the poison came from the bottle Dan gave me earlier.”
What is inadmissible under 804(b)(2) to the extent it expresses “belief” rather than knowledge, requiring exclusion of speculation?
An expert bases their conclusion on a new forensic technique that hasn’t been peer-reviewed and has an unknown error rate.
What is likely inadmissible under the Daubert reliability factors?
On the night Liam died, he left a trembling voicemail saying he was meeting Victor, who had threatened, “I’ll end you today,” and told Marcus, “If anything happens, tell the police.” Moments later, a neighbor called 911 during gunfire, shouting that Victor was shooting him and noting Victor practiced shooting weekly. Police compiled statements from three bystanders—one identified Victor in a photo lineup—but none testified. A forensic analyst claimed a ballistic match using software with a 35% error rate. The prosecution also offered evidence that five years earlier Victor threatened a coworker, a text sent hours before the killing saying, “I’ll deal with him tonight—you know how I get when people disrespect me,” and Victor’s weekly Tuesday shooting range visits as proof he likely fired the fatal shots.
1. Marcus’s voicemail
Type: Statement of a now-deceased declarant.
Potential issues: Hearsay. Could qualify under FRE 804(b)(2) – statement under belief of impending death if Marcus thought he was about to be killed, or present sense impression if describing what was happening. Shows both threat and fear, relevant to Victor’s intent.
2. Neighbor’s 911 call
Type: Excited utterance + eyewitness report.
Admissibility: Likely FRE 803(2) excited utterance, describing gunfire and Victor’s actions. Provides immediate perception, showing opportunity and identification.
3. Bystander statements & photo lineup
Type: Out-of-court identification.
Admissibility: Not admitted if witnesses don’t testify (hearsay). Photo lineup identification could be allowed if the witness testified, otherwise inadmissible.
4. Ballistics report
Type: Expert opinion using software.
Admissibility: Could be challenged under FRE 702/Daubert for reliability due to 35% error rate. The fact it’s “gaining acceptance” is not sufficient alone—jury may hear it if admitted, but it’s highly contestable.
5. Prior threats to coworker
Type: Character evidence / prior bad act.
Admissibility: FRE 404(b) – can’t use just to show Victor is violent (propensity). Could be admitted for motive, intent, or absence of mistake, if properly argued.
6. Text message from Victor
Type: Out-of-court statement, possible admission by party-opponent.
Admissibility: FRE 801(d)(2) – admissible as Victor’s own statement showing state of mind or intent.
7. Victor’s shooting range habit
Type: Routine practice.
Admissibility: Could be FRE 406 – habit evidence, possibly showing he knew how to shoot or had access to firearms, but not necessarily that he committed the crime. Limited probative value.