The Three Rs of Evidence
You are in trial. The other side has just asked a question that will elicit testimony that you are pretty sure is not admissible or you just plain do not like it. You shout, "Objection your Honor." You have not cited an evidence rule. The judge turns to you and says, "On what basis?" Time stands still as you try to marshall a reason but seem paralyzed. Lose that deer in the head lights look by relying on the Three Rs of Evidence.
Most rules regarding the admissibility of evidence fall into three categories. The first is Relevance. Does the proffered evidence have the tendency to make the existance of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. The second is Reliability. These would be such rules as hearsay, or the authentication of a document. The third is is it Right? These would be rules based on some policy. For instance the rule regarding post remedial measures is based on the policy that we want the Defendant to fix the problem without worrying that they are admitting liability.
If you remember these three Rs you should be able to grab onto to one of them and, for example, start arguing about why the evidence is unreliable and chances are you or the judge will finally hit on the actual rule.
