🦅
Federal Evidence • Introduction
EVID#000
Legal Definition
Out in the real world, the bar is pretty low when it comes to "what qualifies as evidence." People constantly rely on random memes, YouTube videos, rumors from friends, and Twitter to shape their perception of what is true and what is not true. But courts have much higher standards to try to keep out unreliable information or blatant bullshit. In a way, the Rules of Evidence act like the court's immune system by protecting those inside of the court from being infected by information that is, in some way, harmful to the pursuit of justice.
It's also helpful to put yourself in the shoes of a trial attorney as you learn these rules. A trial attorney is obsessed with their closing argument. Trial attorneys are story tellers, and a closing argument is the final chapter in their tale that ties together all of the evidence they had presented in the hours, days, or weeks leading up to the closing argument. Strong trial attorneys plan out their closing arguments first. They imagine the perfect story they want to be able to tell to a jury and then work backwards from there to strategize what evidence they need to get into court in order to enable them to tell that story to the jury. In other words, an attorney can't just ramble on about whatever they want in their closing argument. Rather, they can only build their story out of the pieces they successfully got admitted into court.
This is ultimately the purpose of learning the Rules of Evidence. These are the tools that allow you to build your color pallet of arguments that can be used to tie everything together in the end during your closing argument. Is there a specific weapon that the jury needs to know about? Better get that into evidence. Was there a statement from a witness that helps strengthen your case? Better think through the best way to introduce that into the court. The more evidence you get in, the more likely you will earn the ability to make that perfect closing argument to the jury.
With that said, let's talk about how these present themselves on exams.
Evidence exams generally start off with an overview of a trial that you'll need to answer questions about. It's important to review this information and get a feel for the facts. What is the cause of action being discussed? What are its elements? What crime was allegedly committed? What defenses may be available? Is this in a Federal or State court? These questions will define what evidence is relevant to your answer.
Essay exams come in two flavors. The first provides several paragraphs of facts, each containing a discussion of one or two items of evidence that were introduced at trial. The second comes in the form of a transcript with questions and answers taken directly from trial; each line of a transcript is an opportunity to address an evidence issue.
It is important to label, identify, and discuss each item of evidence separately. For example, a conversation between two parties may have a heading in your essay response like, "Bob's statement to Sam about the gun."
Lastly, note that all answers in these cards relate to the Federal Rules of Evidence, unless they specify otherwise.
It's also helpful to put yourself in the shoes of a trial attorney as you learn these rules. A trial attorney is obsessed with their closing argument. Trial attorneys are story tellers, and a closing argument is the final chapter in their tale that ties together all of the evidence they had presented in the hours, days, or weeks leading up to the closing argument. Strong trial attorneys plan out their closing arguments first. They imagine the perfect story they want to be able to tell to a jury and then work backwards from there to strategize what evidence they need to get into court in order to enable them to tell that story to the jury. In other words, an attorney can't just ramble on about whatever they want in their closing argument. Rather, they can only build their story out of the pieces they successfully got admitted into court.
This is ultimately the purpose of learning the Rules of Evidence. These are the tools that allow you to build your color pallet of arguments that can be used to tie everything together in the end during your closing argument. Is there a specific weapon that the jury needs to know about? Better get that into evidence. Was there a statement from a witness that helps strengthen your case? Better think through the best way to introduce that into the court. The more evidence you get in, the more likely you will earn the ability to make that perfect closing argument to the jury.
With that said, let's talk about how these present themselves on exams.
Evidence exams generally start off with an overview of a trial that you'll need to answer questions about. It's important to review this information and get a feel for the facts. What is the cause of action being discussed? What are its elements? What crime was allegedly committed? What defenses may be available? Is this in a Federal or State court? These questions will define what evidence is relevant to your answer.
Essay exams come in two flavors. The first provides several paragraphs of facts, each containing a discussion of one or two items of evidence that were introduced at trial. The second comes in the form of a transcript with questions and answers taken directly from trial; each line of a transcript is an opportunity to address an evidence issue.
It is important to label, identify, and discuss each item of evidence separately. For example, a conversation between two parties may have a heading in your essay response like, "Bob's statement to Sam about the gun."
Lastly, note that all answers in these cards relate to the Federal Rules of Evidence, unless they specify otherwise.
Visual Aids
