Unformatted text preview: GM saying that yeah these are what the cases say, but these rules changed that..not going towards admissibility of evidence, but going towards weight. GM failed to persuade the court that it had fulfilled the requirement of substantial similarity in circumstances. But GM saying this is inconsistent with Rule 403: If it's relevant, then the burden is on the other party to show that dangers misleading the jury substantially outweigh the relevance. Court doesn't let this stand...but you could see why this would be an okay argument (especially considering holdings like that of the court in Simon) Judge says if it's a recreation we're going to be very picky that there is a substantial similarity...if it's illustrating general "scientific" principles we are not going to be as picky. o However, where the "scientific" principle is sufficiently close in appearance to the original accident
than there has to be substantial similarity. CHARACTER EVIDENCE FRE 404, 405, 412-415
Breakdown of Character Evidence Rules: 404 substantive provision that tells you in c...
View Full Document