How to Analyze Legal Relevance on an Evidence Essay (FRE 403)

Sdílet
Vložit
  • čas přidán 2. 08. 2024
  • 📚 LAW SCHOOL & BAR EXAM PREP
    Law school prep: studicata.com/law-school
    Bar exam prep: studicata.com/bar-exam
    Free courses: studicata.com/free-courses
    ❤️ COMMUNITY & REVIEWS
    Community: studicata.com/groups/community
    Testimonials: studicata.com/testimonials-an...
    Submit a review: shoutout.studicata.com
    📱 TECH
    iOS app: studicata.com/ios
    Android app: studicata.com/android
    📣 ABOUT
    Studicata provides a fresher, more relatable way to prep for law school finals and the bar exam. With top-rated video lectures, exam walkthrough videos, outlines, study guides, strategy guides, essay practice exams, multiple-choice assessments, performance tracking, and more-Studicata has you covered with everything you need to ace your finals and pass the bar exam with confidence.
    Email: info@studicata.com
    Learn more: studicata.com
    🎬 VIDEO INFO
    How to Analyze Legal Relevance on an Evidence Essay (FRE 403)
    LEGAL RELEVANCE (FRE 403)
    Under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the court may exclude logically relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: (1) unfair prejudice; (2) confusing the issues; (3) misleading the jury; (4) undue delay; (5) wasting time; or (6) needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. (FRE 403).
    Learn more: studicata.com

Komentáře • 18

  • @razorbackpiperguy2898
    @razorbackpiperguy2898 Před 4 lety +22

    I'm watching this to brush up before my Evidence exam tomorrow.
    I really wish this guy had been my professor. I'd be less worried right now.

    • @HopeMarie2013
      @HopeMarie2013 Před 4 lety +4

      My thoughts exactly. Glad I pay thousands for tuition just to let CZcams teach me lol

  • @rod827virgo
    @rod827virgo Před 4 lety +15

    Just passed GA bar exam! Your videos are super helpful

  • @afshinsarbaz
    @afshinsarbaz Před 4 lety

    fantastic as always, thank you

  • @hyojinlee
    @hyojinlee Před 3 lety

    Love your videos!

  • @anyany19
    @anyany19 Před 5 lety +2

    Thanks for the video! Very helpful!
    However, what about the video on character evidence you mention here?:)))

  • @khachak2
    @khachak2 Před 5 lety +1

    Thank you, very helpful as always! The way i understand it, if probative value and prejudicial effect are equal then probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, thus the evidence (e.g. prior conviction of felony without dishonesty to attack witness credibility) would be admissible?

  • @Djawesome914
    @Djawesome914 Před 4 lety

    Do you have any videos on particularity of a search warrant or scope of a search warrant when dealing with computers or cell phones? Great videos these been help full!

  • @studicata
    @studicata  Před 5 lety

    🚨 SPECIAL OFFER: Want to crush law school finals, rack up scholarship $$$, pass the bar exam, and practice law like a BOSS? Take the LEAP. Get started today for free at: www.studicata.com/leap

  • @saradavies1582
    @saradavies1582 Před 2 lety

    God bless you so so much you make the course look so so cheap.... repetition for emphasis!!

  • @mohdakramshairmohamed7914

    very lucid.

  • @johnwinters1518
    @johnwinters1518 Před 2 lety +3

    This guy makes law professors look bad the way he hones in on what matters instead of adding countless hours of extraneous stuff.

  • @vascra1521
    @vascra1521 Před 5 lety

    Are the jurors so smart. How about an expert here to give a conclusion about consequences, it's seems scientific . You can agree not all jurors are experts , .. correct ?

    • @lia.is.on.
      @lia.is.on. Před 5 lety +4

      Please see my reply to your earlier comment.

  • @vascra1521
    @vascra1521 Před 5 lety +1

    We cannot judge on photos and silly emotions, scientific expertise conclusions is needed .

    • @lia.is.on.
      @lia.is.on. Před 5 lety +6

      What are you talking about? An expert witness is not needed here. Rule #1 of law school exams is DON'T ASSUME FACTS! He didn't say anything about science or experts. Also, whether the jurors are "smart" is not relevant here. You must be a 0L or a 1L. Focus on your basic punctuation and grammar. It needs a lot of work.