Problem 1

Problem 1 - Is it relevant?

• Charles: “I would not have voted ‘Yes.’”

• Charles: “Alice told me that she would not have voted ‘Yes.’”

• Document: “Another recipient had a GPA of 2.8.”

• Tom: “Dan said ‘Committee chair is a pathological liar.’”

Problem # 1(a)

Charles: “I would not have voted for

Steve if I had known”

Problem 1(a)

Proffered Evidence

FOC

Fact Legal Outcome

Makes Fact SML

Affects Legal Outcome

I would not have voted

for S if I had known

PE LO

P Wins -- S Would Not Have Gotten Scholarship

?

Proffered Evidence Fact Legal

Outcome

Makes Fact SML

Affects Legal Outcome

I would not have voted

for S if I had known

?P Wins --

S Would Not Have Gotten Scholarship

3C What is it offered to prove?

Proffered Evidence Fact Legal

Outcome

Makes Fact SML

Affects Legal Outcome

I would not have voted

for S if I had known

P Wins -- S Would Not Have Gotten Scholarship

C would not have voted

for S

3R

C’s Vote

Proffered Evidence Fact Legal

Outcome

Makes Fact SML

Affects Legal Outcome

I would not have voted

for S if I had known

P Wins -- S Would Not Have Gotten Scholarship

3 would not have voted

for S

CR

Majority

Proffered Evidence Fact Legal

Outcome

Makes Fact SML

Affects Legal Outcome

I would not have voted

for S if I had known

P Wins -- S Would Not Have Gotten Scholarship

3 would not have voted

for S

How does PE make it more likely that three would have voted “no”?

Makes Fact SML

Proffered Evidence Fact

I would not have voted

for S if I had known

3 would not have voted

for S

Evidentiary Hypothesis C 3

Evidentiary HypothesisIf 1 votes no, it is sml that

2 others would also vote no.

+

Problem # 1(b)

Charles: “Alice told me that she would have voted ‘No.’”

Problem 1(b)

Proffered Evidence

FOC

Fact Legal Outcome

Makes Fact SML

Affects Legal Outcome

Alice told me that she

would have voted “no.”

PE LO

P Wins -- S Would Not Have Gotten Scholarship

Alice really would have voted “No.”

How does PE of what Alice said make it sml that Alice would have voted “No”?

Proffered Evidence Fact Legal

Outcome

Makes Fact SML

Affects Legal Outcome

Alice told me that she

would have voted “no.”

PAlice really would have voted “No.”

P Wins -- S Would Not Have Gotten Scholarship

Hearsay Evidentiary Hypothesis

Evidentiary HypothesisIf someone (not the witness) says

something, it is SML that it is true.

+

Makes Fact SML

Proffered Evidence Fact

Alice told me that she

would have voted “no.”

Alice really would have voted “No.”

Problem # 1(c)

Document: “One of two other

recipients had a 2.8 GPA.”

Problem 1(c)

Proffered Evidence

FOC

Fact Legal Outcome

Makes Fact SML

Affects Legal Outcome

Zola had a 2.8 and got a

Yahoo

PE LO

D Wins -- S Would Have

Gotten Scholarship

3 members would have voted “Yes”

Better Grades EHEvidentiary Hypothesis

Evidence that members voted for candidate w/2.8 makes it SML that

they would have voted for one w/3.0

+

Makes Fact SML

Proffered Evidence Fact

Zola had a 2.8 GPA and got a Yahoo

3 members would have voted “Yes”

Problem # 1(d)

Tom: “Dan told a woman that he was a

member of an important committee

and that the committee’s chair was

a pathological liar.”

Hearsay Evidentiary Hypothesis

Evidentiary HypothesisIf someone (not the witness) says

something, it is SML that it is true.

+

Makes Fact SML

Proffered Evidence Fact

Dan said, “Chair is a

liar.”

Chair really is a liar.

Tom

Character EH

Evidentiary HypothesisIf a witness is a liar, it is SML that his

or her testimony was false.

+

Makes Fact SML

Proffered Evidence Fact

Dan said, “Chair is a

liar.”

Chair was lying when he testified.

Tom

Chair would have voted

“Yes” even if he knew GPA

Alice never talked to the Chair about

the vote.

Conditional Relevance

EH: If a witness is a liar, it is SML that his testimony was false.

+

Makes Fact SML

Proffered Evidence Fact

Dan said, “Chair is a

liar.”

Charles really is a

liar.

Chair = Charles

Connecting Fact