Federal Rules of Evidence 2026_2027
Federal Rules
– Key
of Evidence
Concepts 2026_2027
& Legal
Federal
Practice
Rules
– Key
Applications.pdf
of Evidence
Concepts 2026_2027
& Legal Practice
– Key
Applications.pdf
Concepts & Legal Practice Applications.pdf
Federal Rules of Evidence
2026/2027 – Key Concepts & Legal
Practice Applications
Federal Rules of Evidence 2026_2027
Federal Rules
– Key
of Evidence
Concepts 2026_2027
& Legal
Federal
Practice
Rules
– Key
Applications.pdf
of Evidence
Concepts 2026_2027
& Legal Practice
– Key
Applications.pdf
Concepts & Legal Practice Applications.pdf
,Federal Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications for Legal Practice.pdf
State the Rule 403 balancing test — and the ground the Federal Rules deliberately omit.
Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED
by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay,
waste of time, or needless cumulative evidence. UNFAIR SURPRISE is NOT a ground under
the Federal Rules — discovery and continuances handle surprise.
What does FRE 401 relevance actually combine?
Materiality (the fact is OF CONSEQUENCE to the action under the pleadings and
substantive law) + probativeness (ANY tendency to make that fact more or less probable).
Evidence relating to a time, event, or person OTHER than the one in controversy is suspect
— and remoteness in time drains probative value (a threat the day before the killing vs. ten
years before).
Federal Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications for Legal Practice.pdf
,Federal Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications for Legal Practice.pdf
Plaintiff's prior accidents or prior claims — admissible?
Generally NO — accident-proneness and litigiousness prove little. BUT prior FALSE claims
are admissible (common scheme to defraud), and a prior claim involving injury to the SAME
BODY PART is admissible to show the present claim is false or exaggerated.
Federal Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications for Legal Practice.pdf
, Federal Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications for Legal Practice.pdf
Prior accidents caused by the SAME event or condition — admissible to prove what three
things?
(1) That a defect or dangerous condition EXISTED; (2) that D had KNOWLEDGE of it; (3)
CAUSATION of the present injury. Absence of similar accidents: courts are reluctant, but
may admit for an unchanged structural condition to show no defect — and safety history is
admissible to show D's lack of knowledge.
Habit vs. character — and the FRE rule.
Habit is a REGULAR RESPONSE to a SPECIFIC set of circumstances ('always takes stairs two
at a time'); character is a general disposition ('always in a hurry'). FRE 406 admits habit freely
to prove conduct in conformity on the occasion — no corroboration, no eyewitness
requirement. Business ROUTINE is equally admissible (regular mailing practice proves the
letter was mailed).
Federal Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications for Legal Practice.pdf
Federal Rules
– Key
of Evidence
Concepts 2026_2027
& Legal
Federal
Practice
Rules
– Key
Applications.pdf
of Evidence
Concepts 2026_2027
& Legal Practice
– Key
Applications.pdf
Concepts & Legal Practice Applications.pdf
Federal Rules of Evidence
2026/2027 – Key Concepts & Legal
Practice Applications
Federal Rules of Evidence 2026_2027
Federal Rules
– Key
of Evidence
Concepts 2026_2027
& Legal
Federal
Practice
Rules
– Key
Applications.pdf
of Evidence
Concepts 2026_2027
& Legal Practice
– Key
Applications.pdf
Concepts & Legal Practice Applications.pdf
,Federal Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications for Legal Practice.pdf
State the Rule 403 balancing test — and the ground the Federal Rules deliberately omit.
Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED
by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay,
waste of time, or needless cumulative evidence. UNFAIR SURPRISE is NOT a ground under
the Federal Rules — discovery and continuances handle surprise.
What does FRE 401 relevance actually combine?
Materiality (the fact is OF CONSEQUENCE to the action under the pleadings and
substantive law) + probativeness (ANY tendency to make that fact more or less probable).
Evidence relating to a time, event, or person OTHER than the one in controversy is suspect
— and remoteness in time drains probative value (a threat the day before the killing vs. ten
years before).
Federal Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications for Legal Practice.pdf
,Federal Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications for Legal Practice.pdf
Plaintiff's prior accidents or prior claims — admissible?
Generally NO — accident-proneness and litigiousness prove little. BUT prior FALSE claims
are admissible (common scheme to defraud), and a prior claim involving injury to the SAME
BODY PART is admissible to show the present claim is false or exaggerated.
Federal Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications for Legal Practice.pdf
, Federal Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications for Legal Practice.pdf
Prior accidents caused by the SAME event or condition — admissible to prove what three
things?
(1) That a defect or dangerous condition EXISTED; (2) that D had KNOWLEDGE of it; (3)
CAUSATION of the present injury. Absence of similar accidents: courts are reluctant, but
may admit for an unchanged structural condition to show no defect — and safety history is
admissible to show D's lack of knowledge.
Habit vs. character — and the FRE rule.
Habit is a REGULAR RESPONSE to a SPECIFIC set of circumstances ('always takes stairs two
at a time'); character is a general disposition ('always in a hurry'). FRE 406 admits habit freely
to prove conduct in conformity on the occasion — no corroboration, no eyewitness
requirement. Business ROUTINE is equally admissible (regular mailing practice proves the
letter was mailed).
Federal Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications forFederal
Legal Practice.pdf
Rules of Evidence_ Key Concepts and Applications for Legal Practice.pdf
