4-1. High probative value because intoxication shows negligence.
4-2. High likelihood of confusing the jury, low probative value.
4-3. Clearly admissible. Photos are highly probative to show jury what crime scene looked like and establish the "corpus delicti." Gruesomeness is defendant's own fault, so raises no prejudicial effect outside the merits of the case.
4-4. Obviously high probative value. This evidence is a description of the incident being litigated and the damage caused. If probative value is high, no amount of prejudicial effect can "substantially" outweigh it.
4-5. Clearly of high probative value to damages. Day-in-the-life films are used routinely by PI lawyers.
4-6. (1) Low probative value, significant prejudicial effect (racism). Exclude.
(2) Probative to describe scene, no prejudicial effect that I can see. Admit.
4-7. Similar events rule. Judicial discretion on whether the differences mean that the experiment is not under "substantially similar conditions." I would admit it if I were the judge.
4-8. (1) The DNA test is clearly admissible. Very high probative value and little danger of confusing the jury.
(2) The post-hypnotic testimony is of low probative value because of the problem of planted suggestion, and has a high danger of confusing the jury about the proper weight to give to it, so I would exclude UNLESS it were the only evidence of identity. If it were the only evidence, its probative value would be higher.
4-9. The evidence is probative on two issues -- notice of a dangerous condition, and establishing the condition itself. However, there is a connection problem for either use. I would rule the evidence inadmissible under 403 because of extremely low probative value unless it can be connected to one of the two issues -- by showing that the defendant was aware of the previous puddles (notice); or that the conditions were substantially similar (condition).
4-10. Sustain. Low probative value and high prejudicial effect (confusing the jury). There is a UCC rule that permits interpreting an ambiguous contract provision by looking at prior contracts, but the conditions for it have not yet been met.
4-11. I would exclude. No foundation of similar conditions so low probative value; high likelihood the jury would overemphasize the evidence (confusion).
4-12. Exclude unless the proponent can establish substantial similarity of conditions.
4-13. (1) Depends on the issue. Low probative value and high prejudicial (emotional) effect if offered to prove that the harassment happened, but of higher probative value if the employer claims lack of knowledge or innocent motive, or if the plaintiff is trying to prove hostile work environment. The problem does not give you enough information.
(2) Exclude the findings in those other cases in any event. What the finding was is of little probative value and is likely to confuse the issues.
4-14. Not admissible. Low probative value (not similar in time, scope, or other conditions); and high likelihood that evidence will be misused by jury.
4-15. Object to the video under 403. Little additional probative value and high prejudice (gruesomeness, emotion).
Response: High probative value on issue of damages.
4-16. (1) The evidence is probative on two issues -- notice of a dangerous condition, and establishing the condition itself. However, there is a connection problem for either use. I would rule the evidence inadmissible under 403 because of extremely low probative value unless it can be connected to one of the two issues -- by showing that the defendant was aware of the previous puddles (notice); or that the conditions were substantially similar (condition).
(2) Low probative value for same reasons (no substantial similarity of conditions), high danger of misleading jury because of aura of expertise.
(3) Very little probative value without connection to the present case; jury likely to assume connection exists just because the company is the same (confusion of issues).
(4) Zero probative value -- this goes to prove no material issue.
(5) Attempts to prove absence of similar events is generally thought to be of low probative value (no material issue -- it is not necessary to a charge of negligence that the defendant have been previously negligent) and high likelihood of misleading the jury.
4-17. No probative value because does not help prove what happened in this case. Even if it had a little probative value, "naked" statistical evidence without explanation is inherently misleading to jury.
4-18. Little or no probative value but may cause jury to speculate about where money came from, confusing the issues.