In contrast toadmissible evidence, inadmissible evidence isevidence that may not be introduced to a factfinder (usually thejudgeorjury) to prove the party’s claim. Fed. R. Evid. 103(d).
TheFederal Rules of Evidence, which apply to all civil and criminal federal court proceedings, govern whether evidence is inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 1101(b). If the evidence does not meet standards of relevance, the privilege or public policy exists, the qualification of witnesses or the authentication of evidence is at issue, or the evidence is unlawfully gathered, then it is inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 104(a). But these rules--except for those on privilege--do not apply to the trial judge’s determination on a preliminary question of fact governing admissibility.
Relevant evidence is probative and material evidence. It tends to make a fact more or less probable than it would be, or it is a crucial fact in determining the action. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Generally, if the evidence isirrelevant, then is inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402. However, when a court has admitted irrelevant evidence, the court may permit the introduction of additional irrelevant evidence to rebut the previously admitted evidence. Known as a curative admission, it will be admitted when it’s necessary to remove unfair prejudice. A party’s failure to object to the admission of the initial irrelevant evidence is a factor to be considered in determining whether the party was unfairly prejudiced by it. Crawford v. United States, 198 F.2d 976 (D.C. Cir. 1952). Under certain circ*mstances, relevant evidence will be inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Due to public policy doctrine, evidence relating to subsequent remedial measures, compromise offers and negotiations, offers to pay medical expenses, plea negotiation, liability insurance, sexual conduct may not be admitted to prove certain claims or liability, even if it’s relevant. Fed. R. Evid. 407, 408, 409, 410(a), 411, 412(a).
Evidence protected byprivilege (e.g., spousal privilege, attorney-client privilege, physician-patient privilege, psychotherapist-patient privilege) may not be admitted if the holder of the privilege refuses to disclose information or bar such evidence be used in all stages of a case or proceedings. Fed. R. Evid. 1101(c). The Federal Rules have no specific privilege provisions but instead, defer to common-law privileges. Fed. R. Evid. 501.
Character evidence is a witness’s personal knowledge about a person’s behavior or trait of characters—such as the witness’s opinion about the person or information about the person’s reputation, prior acts, and criminal convictions. Fed. R. Evid. 404. Character evidence usually is inadmissible. Here are exceptions. It may be admissible for purposes, such as the impeachment of a witness's credibility or as proof of the person’s motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. It’s also admissible when the character is at issue or is an element of a claim. Fed. R. Evid. 404.
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement that the declarant made to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Hearsay evidence generally is inadmissible unless it falls within an exception or exclusion set out in the Federal Rules, a federal statute, or a Supreme Court rule. Fed. R. Evid. 802.
Authentication of evidence is the evidence sufficient to support a finding of the proponent’s claims. Under the best evidence rule, handwritten copies of an original are inadmissible, unless the original or duplicate is lost, destroyed, or in the possession of an adversary who fails to produce it. Fed. R. Evid. 901(b).
Some evidence has limited admissibility, which may be admissible for one purpose (e.g., impeachment) but not for another (e.g., substantive purposes), or against one party but not against another. If a party makes a timely request in these cases, the court must restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly. Fed. R. Evid. 105.
[Last updated in March of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]
As an expert in the field of evidence law, I have an in-depth understanding of the principles and rules governing admissibility and inadmissibility of evidence in legal proceedings. My expertise is backed by a comprehensive knowledge of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which play a pivotal role in determining the admissibility of evidence in both civil and criminal federal court proceedings.
The Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly Rule 103(d) and Rule 1101(b), form the backbone of evidentiary procedures, outlining the criteria for admissibility. I am well-versed in the nuances of Rule 104(a), which addresses factors such as relevance, privilege, public policy, witness qualifications, and authentication of evidence, all of which contribute to the determination of admissibility.
Relevant evidence, as defined by Rule 401, is a key concept in this context. It is evidence that is probative and material, meaning it either makes a fact more or less probable or is crucial in determining the action. Rule 402 establishes that irrelevant evidence is generally inadmissible, highlighting the importance of relevance in the admissibility determination.
I am familiar with the concept of curative admission, as mentioned in the article, where additional irrelevant evidence may be introduced to counter previously admitted evidence, particularly when necessary to remove unfair prejudice. The citation of Crawford v. United States, 198 F.2d 976 (D.C. Cir. 1952), further emphasizes the legal precedent surrounding objections to initially admitted irrelevant evidence.
Rule 403, which addresses the balancing of probative value and prejudicial impact, is crucial in understanding when relevant evidence may be deemed inadmissible due to the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needless cumulative presentation.
The article also touches upon exclusions based on public policy, such as subsequent remedial measures, compromise offers, negotiations, and other specific scenarios covered by Rule 407, 408, 409, 410(a), 411, and 412(a).
Privilege, another significant aspect, is discussed in terms of spousal privilege, attorney-client privilege, physician-patient privilege, and psychotherapist-patient privilege. Rule 1101(c) and Rule 501 underscore the importance of privilege and its deference to common-law principles.
Character evidence, as delineated by Rule 404, is explored in detail, highlighting its general inadmissibility and exceptions, such as impeachment, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
The concept of hearsay, defined in Rule 801(c), is explained as an out-of-court statement made to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The article clarifies that hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible unless it falls within specified exceptions or exclusions outlined in the Federal Rules, federal statutes, or Supreme Court rules (Rule 802).
Authentication of evidence, as per Rule 901(b) and the best evidence rule, is outlined, emphasizing the requirement for evidence sufficient to support the proponent's claims and restrictions on the admissibility of handwritten copies.
Lastly, the article touches upon evidence with limited admissibility, governed by Rule 105, which may be admissible for one purpose but not for another, or against one party but not against another. The court is mandated to restrict such evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly upon a timely request.
In conclusion, my expertise in evidence law encompasses a thorough understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence and their applications in determining the admissibility of evidence in legal proceedings.
