Judicial Notice in Criminal Cases
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a court may take judicial notice of a fact that is:
Not subject to reasonable dispute, because it is
Generally known within the court’s jurisdiction, or
Capable of accurate and ready determination from reliable sources.
In a criminal case, the court may take judicial notice of a fact but must instruct the jury that it may, but is not required to, accept the noticed fact as conclusive.
THE RULE EXISTS TO:
The defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial
The prosecution’s burden to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt
Offers of Compromise (FRE 408)
Under FRE 408, statements of fact, offers, and admissions made during compromise negotiations of a disputed claim are inadmissible to prove liability, fault, or damages.
Rule 408 applies only after a dispute has arisen. if no lawsuit, no compromise–> statements admissible.
What is NOT a compromise?
Statements made before a dispute
Immediate apologies
Repair offers made at the scene
Voluntary admissions without bargaining
Prior Convictions Involving Dishonesty
Impeaching Defendant
Crimes involving dishonesty or false statements are automatically admissible to impeach any witness, including the defendant, regardless of whether the crime was a felony or misdemeanor.
Under FRE 609(a)(2) (and similarly under CA Evidence rules):
Evidence of
Other Crimes for Non-Propensity Purposes
Rule 404b Proof D committed Crime
Evidence of prior crimes may be admitted to prove intent, identity, knowledge, Common plan or scheme or absence of mistake when the prior acts are sufficiently similar to the charged offense and are offered for a non-propensity purpose.
Evidence of prior crimes is inadmissible to show propensity, but admissible to show:
Intent
Knowledge
Absence of mistake
Identity
Common plan or scheme
Character Evidence in Defamation Cases
In a defamation action, evidence of the **plaintiff’s reputation **for the trait alleged is admissible both to **prove the truth **of the statement and to mitigate or defeat damages.
Expert reliance on hearsay
An expert may base an opinion on facts or data that are inadmissible, including hearsay, if experts in the field reasonably rely on such information.
Critical limitation: Just because an expert may rely on hearsay does NOT mean the hearsay itself becomes admissible for its truth.
An expert may base an opinion on inadmissible hearsay if experts in the field reasonably rely on it.
Agent or Employee Admission (Scope of Employment Rule)
A **statement is not hearsay if it is offered against a party** and was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship while the relationship existed.
Statement of an opposing party — agent or employee; admissible only if the statement concerns a matter within the scope of the declarant’s employment and was made during the employment relationship.
Only statements made by an employee about matters within the scope of that employee’s job duties qualify.
Rule 609 Crimes of Dishonesty
Rule 609(a)(2)-Crimes involving dishonesty or false statements, such as perjury or fraud, are automatically admissible to impeach any witness, regardless of punishment, unless barred by the 10-year rule.
Crimes of dishonesty require:
False statement
Deceit
Fraud
Perjury, embezzlement, false pretenses
Rule 609 Felony Convictions
Felony convictions may be used to impeach a witness, but are subject to Rule 403 balancing; when the witness is a criminal defendant, the probative value must outweigh prejudice.
Rule 609 b Older Convictions
Convictions over 10 years old are presumptively inadmissible and may be admitted only if their probative value substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect and advance notice is given.
misrepresentation of fact
contracts
A misrepresentation of fact that induces assent provides a basis for avoidance of a contract. A misrepresentation is defined as a statement that is not in accord with the facts. Affirmative conduct that is “intended or known likely to prevent another from learning a fact is equivalent to an assertion that the fact does not exist” and constitutes a misrepresentation.
holdover commercial tenant/tresspasser
The landlord granted the legal right of possession to the tenant, which means that neither the landlord nor anyone holding of the landlord prevented the tenant from going into possession at the commencement of the lease term. The previous tenant’s lease term had ended before the new lease term began. The previous tenant then became a trespasser and was not holding of the landlord. The court found for the landlord, and thus there is no rule in this jurisdiction that the landlord need also put the tenant into actual possession.
commerce clause and rent regulations
Congress can regulate the rental terms for residential property pursuant to the commerce clause because such rentals constitute economic activity that, in the aggregate, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
rep/opp vs specific acts evidence
evidence
When a criminal defendant seeks to prove his good character under FRE 404(a)(2), FRE 405(a) allows proof only by reputation evidence or opinion evidence, not by specific instances of conduct.
perfect tender vs installment k substantial impairment standard
contracts
UCC § 2-612(2) provides that a buyer may reject any installment that is nonconforming if the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of that installment and it cannot be cured. The delivery of less than the contracted-for amount constituted a nonconformity that substantially impaired the value of the installment since the wholesaler could not deliver the remaining 5,000 pounds until the day after the bakery needed the flour to fulfill its weekly baking needs, and the bakery was entitled to reject the tender.
dismissal on the merits
just trust the question
The state court made it clear that the dismissal was intended to operate as an adjudication on the merits—and carry res judicata effect—by stating that the dismissal was with prejudice. Because federal courts must give full faith and credit to state-court judgments, the federal court must give the state-court dismissal the same preclusive effect it would have in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738.
negligence per se
missed it bc too fast!!!! was an easy call
A criminal statute can be used to set the standard of care in a negligence action if it was meant to protect against the type of harm that occurred by specifying preventive steps that should be taken. In that case, violation of the statute is negligence per se.
out of court identification curable
evidnece
Even if an out-of-court identification procedure is unnecessarily suggestive, which this one plainly was, suppression of in-court testimony is not required if the eyewitness’s identification is shown to be reliable under a multi-factor inquiry.
14th amendment and private actors
The protections afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment apply only to conduct that is attributable to the state. Because the professor was discharged by a private university and not by a state actor, the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply.
Misrepresentation
contracts
A misrepresentation of fact that induces assent provides a basis for avoidance of a contract. A misrepresentation is defined as a statement that is not in accord with the facts. Affirmative conduct that is “intended or known likely to prevent another from learning a fact is equivalent to an assertion that the fact does not exist” and constitutes a misrepresentation.
Rule 901(b)(3) — Authentication by Comparison
evidence
Core Rule
Evidence may be authenticated by:
Comparison with an authenticated specimen
By either an expert or the jury
Nuances
Only some specimens need authentication by a witness with personal knowledge.
The judge does NOT need to authenticate each specimen.
Jury may compare once threshold authenticity is shown.
Authentication is conditional relevance → 104(b).
Rule 104(b) conditional relevance standard applies.
Trap:
Students think expert is required — it is not.
Compelled Testimony — Immunity
Rule
Fifth Amendment privilege applies:
Even in grand jury
Witness may be compelled only if given:
✔ Use immunity
✔ Derivative-use immunity
Transactional immunity NOT required.
Trap:
Grand juries not bound by evidence rules — but 5th Amendment still applies.
Declarant-Witness (Prior Identification)
evidence
Rule (FRE 801(d)(1)(C))
A prior identification is:
Non-hearsay
If declarant testifies
And is subject to cross-examination
Key Case: United States v. Owens
Even if witness:
Cannot remember the identification
Claims memory loss
They are still “subject to cross-examination.”
Trap:
Memory loss ≠ confrontation violation.
Brady disclosure
suppression of material
Suppression of material favorable evidence violates due process if:
There is a reasonable probability that disclosure would have changed the outcome.
Includes:
Exculpatory
Impeachment evidence
Timing matters — must be disclosed in time to use effectively.
-
Contracts129
-
Torts86
-
Criminal Law133
-
Remedies0
-
Real Property23
-
Criminal Procedure62
-
Civil Procedure45
-
Business Associations1
-
Constitutional Law23
-
Evidence44
-
Professional Responsibility90
-
Community Property0
-
Wills, Trusts, Successions0
-
Essay Exam Analysis13
-
WRONG ANSWER RULES45
-
2026 BAR ESSAY RULES76
