Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Court of appeals affirmed rule 408 did not bar

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: s. Relevancy problems: Jury might attach too much weight to a defendant's policy choice to attach too much money... does not mean that the defendant is guilty...just might not want to deal with litigation (and similarly for plaintiff... might be willing to settle for less than he could get in court to avoid litigation.) Requirement of a dispute: 408 protects only offers to compromise and compromises of claims that are disputed as to either validity or amount. Thus the rule does not protect an offer to pay a claim that is admittedly owed! When the facts fall short of the filing of a lawsuit of the threat of litigation, courts will have to determine on a case-by case basis whether the offer was made in the context of an existing dispute. Example no existing dispute. Trial court admitted a settlement agreement and release that the D employer asked the plaintiff to sign when the plaintiff was fired. Court of appeals affirmed. Rule 408 did not bar admissibility b/c the plaintiff had not yet asserted any claim of discriminatory firing when the D presented the settlement agreement to him. Example exis...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online