Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Subsequent litigation tactics not material to the

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: nd strategy are seldom relevant. Subsequent litigation tactics not material to the fact of consequence: Reasonable basis for denying the claim Hypo 2 [Evidence deemed irrelevant because it is not probative] D intentionally, seriously damaged a motor vehicle belong to P at 11:00 pm. D offers a witness who was at the scene around 9pm and said D was not around. Evidence is irrelevant! The witnesses evidence is not probative o 9:00 pm is not close enough, hard to argue (without other information) that the fact that I wasn't there at 9 makes it unlikely or less likely that I wasn't there at 11. o This is not a question of substantive law, merely dealing with probaity of evidence Is the evidence probative of the proposition offered to prove (i.e. that the D wasn't there at 11 pm?) Court says no! Not dealing with substantive law (not turning to elements of crime or anything)...just evidentiary. Commercial Outline Notes: The concept of relevancy can be broken down into two quite different concepts materiality and probity: 1) Materiality o Test of materiality relates to whether the evidence is offered upon a m...
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