AMTA - Midlands Rules of Evidence

AMTA - Midlands Rules of Evidence (9/15/25 Update)

Rule 101

Scope; Definitions:
(a) Scope. These rules apply to proceedings in the courts of the State of Midlands. The specific courts and proceedings to which the rules apply, along with exceptions, are set out in Rule 1101. No bureaucratic organizations whose edicts govern conduct in Midlands are considered to exist unless specified within the case problem. Comment: Midlands is recognized as being in the United States and governed by the U.S. Constitution.

(b) Definitions. In these rules

1. “civil case” means a civil action or proceeding;

2. “criminal case” includes a criminal proceeding;

3. “public office” includes a public agency;

4. “record” includes a memorandum, report, or data compilation;

5. a “rule prescribed by the Midlands Supreme Court” means a rule adopted by the Midlands Supreme Court under statutory authority; and

6. a reference to any kind of written material or any other medium includes electronically stored information.

Rule 102

Purpose:
These rules should be construed so as to administer every proceeding fairly, eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay, and promote the development of evidence law, to the end of ascertaining the truth and securing a just determination.

Rule 103

Rulings on Evidence:

(a) Preserving a Claim of Error. A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of the party and:

1. if the ruling admits evidence, a party, on the record: (A) timely objects or moves to strike; and (B) states the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context; or

2. if the ruling excludes evidence, a party informs the court of its substance by an offer of proof, unless the substance was apparent from the context.

(b) Not Needing to Renew an Objection or Offer of Proof. Once the court rules definitively on the record – either before or at trial – a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.

(c) Omitted.

(d) Preventing the Jury from Hearing Inadmissible Evidence. To the extent practicable, the court must conduct a jury trial so that inadmissible evidence is not suggested to the jury by any means.

(e) Taking Notice of Plain Error. A court may take notice of a plain error affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly preserved.

Rule 104 (a)

Preliminary Questions:
(a) In General. The court must decide any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible. In so deciding, the court is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege.

Rule 104 (b) + (e)

Preliminary Questions:
(b) Relevance That Depends on a Fact. When the relevance of evidence depends on whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist. The court may admit the proposed evidence on the condition that the proof be introduced later.

(c) Omitted.

(d) Omitted.

(e) Evidence Relevant to Weight and Credibility. This rule does not limit a party’s right to introduce before the jury evidence that is relevant to the weight or credibility of other evidence.

Rule 105

Omitted.

Rule 106

Remainder of or Related Statements:
If a party introduces all or part of a statement, an adverse party may require the introduction of any other part – or any other statement – that in fairness ought to be considered. The adverse party may do so over a hearsay objection.

(Comment: This rule of completeness applies only to material provided in the case packet. This rule does not reference any material not provided in the case packet. An attorney may object under this rule to require the proponent of a statement to introduce omitted words or clauses of a sentence. However, if additional sentences ought to be considered in fairness, the opponent may only introduce those additional sentences during the opponent’s subsequent examination. By not objecting, an attorney does not waive the right to introduce additional sentences, omitted words, or omitted clauses that ought in fairness be considered. This rule is intended to be a rule of inclusion, not exclusion.)

Rule 107

Illustrative Aids:
(a) Permitted Uses. The court may allow a party to present an illustrative aid to help the trier of fact understand the evidence or argument if the aid’s utility in assisting comprehension is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or wasting time.

(b) Omitted.

(c) Omitted.

(d) Summaries of Voluminous Materials Admitted as Evidence. When a document is admitted as evidence to prove the content of voluminous admissible evidence, such summaries are governed by Rule 1006.

Rule 201

Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts:
(a) Scope. This rule governs judicial notice of an adjudicative fact only, not a legislative fact.

(b) Kinds of Facts That May Be Judicially Noticed. The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it:

1. is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or

2. can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
   
   

(c) Taking Notice. The court:

1. omitted;

2. must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.
   
   

(d) Timing. The court may take judicial notice at any stage of the proceeding.

(e) Opportunity to Be Heard. On timely request, a party is entitled to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice and the nature of the fact to be noticed. If the court takes judicial notice before notifying a party, the party, on request, is still entitled to be heard.

(f) Instructing the Jury. In a civil case, the court must instruct the jury to accept the noticed fact as conclusive. In a criminal case, the court must instruct the jury that it may or may not accept the noticed fact as conclusive.

Rule 301

Presumptions in Civil Actions Generally:
In a civil case, unless a Midlands statute or these rules provide otherwise, the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption. But this rule does not shift the burden of persuasion, which remains on the party who had it originally.

302

Omitted.

Rule 401

Test for Relevant Evidence:
Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

Rule 402

General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence:
Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:

1. the United States Constitution;

2. these rules; or other rules prescribed in Midlands.
   
   Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
   
   (Comment: Relevant evidence is limited to the information supplied by or reasonably inferred from the case materials supplied by AMTA. For further explanation see Rule 7.21 of the AMTA Rulebook.)

Rule 403

Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons:
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

Rule 404 (a) (1)

Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts:

(a) Character Evidence.

(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.

Rule 404 (a) (2)

Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts:
(a) Character Evidence.
(2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case:

1. (A) A defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it. In lieu of rebuttal witness availability, a defendant must first notify the court and opposing counsel in writing at the Captains’ Meeting of the intention to offer such evidence. If such notice is given, the form included with these Rules of Evidence should be completed and presented to the judges with the ballots, and the prosecution may also offer such character evidence during its case-in-chief.

2. (B) A defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may: (i) offer evidence to rebut it; and (ii) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait. In lieu of rebuttal witness availability, a defendant must first notify opposing counsel in writing at the Captains’ Meeting of the intention to offer such evidence. If such notice is given, the form included with these Rules of Evidence should be completed and presented to the judges with the ballots, and the prosecution may also offer such character evidence during its case-in-chief.

3. (C) In a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.

Rule 404 (a) (3)

(a) Character Evidence.

(3) Exceptions for a Witness. Evidence of a witness’s character may be admitted under Rules 607, 608, and 609.

Rule 404 (b) (1)

(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.

(1) Prohibited Uses: Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

Rule 404 (b) (2) and (3)

(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.

(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

(3) Notice in a Criminal Case. The prosecution in a criminal case shall provide written notice of such intent prior to witness selection in the Captains’ Meeting.

Rule 405 (a)

Methods of Proving Character:

(a) By Reputation or Opinion. When evidence of a person’s character or character trait is admissible, it may be proved by testimony about the person’s reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination of the character witness, the court may allow inquiry into relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct.

Rule 405 (b)

Methods of Proving Character:

(b) By Specific Instances of Conduct. When a person’s character or character trait is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, the character or trait may also be proved by relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct.

Rule 406

Habit; Routine Practice: Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice. The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness.

Rule 407

Subsequent Remedial Measures: When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:

• negligence;

• culpable conduct;

• a defect in a product or its design; or

• a need for a warning or instruction.
  
  But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or – if disputed – proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures.

Rule 408

Compromise Offers and Negotiations

(a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible – on behalf of any party – either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction:

1. Furnishing, promising, or offering – or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept – a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and

2. conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim – except when offered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim by a public office in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority.
   
   

(b) Exceptions. The court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.

Rule 409

Offers to Pay Medical and Similar Expenses: Evidence of furnishing, promising to pay, or offering to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses resulting from an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury.

Rule 410

Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements: (a) Prohibited Uses. In a civil or criminal case, evidence of the following is not admissible against the defendant who made the plea or participated in the plea discussions:

1. a guilty plea that was later withdrawn;

2. a nolo contendere plea;

3. omitted; or

4. a statement made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority if the discussions did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in a later-withdrawn guilty plea.

(b) Exceptions. The court may admit a statement described in Rule 410 (a)(3) or (4):

1. in any proceeding in which another statement made during the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced, if in fairness the statements ought to be considered together; or

2. in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement, if the defendant made the statement under oath, on the record and with counsel present.

Rules 412-415

Omitted.

Rule 501

Privileges in General: Only privileges granted by a statute of the state of Midlands or by Midlands case law shall be recognized.

Rule 502

Omitted.

Rule 601

Competency to Testify in General: Every person is competent to be a witness unless these rules provide otherwise.

Rule 602

Need for Personal Knowledge: A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness’s own testimony. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.

Rule 603

Oath or Affirmation to Testify Truthfully: Before testifying, a witness shall be presumed to have been sworn in, by an oath or affirmation to testify truthfully administered in a form designed to impress that duty on the witness’s conscience.

Rule 604

Omitted.

Rule 605

Judge’s Competency as a Witness: The presiding judge may not testify as a witness at the trial. A party need not object to preserve the issue.

Rule 606

Omitted.

Rule 607

Who May Impeach a Witness: Any party, including the party that called the witness, may attack the witness’s credibility.

Rule 608 (a)

A Witness’s Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness

(a) Reputation or Opinion Evidence. A witness’s credibility may be attacked or supported by testimony about the witness’s reputation for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or by testimony in the form of an opinion about that character. But evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the witness’s character for truthfulness has been attacked.

(Comment: Written notice is required in civil and criminal cases. In lieu of rebuttal witness availability, if the party attacking the character of the witness for truthfulness is the defense and the witness is a plaintiff/prosecution witness, the defense must first notify opposing counsel in writing at the Captains’ Meeting of the intention to offer such evidence. If such notice is given, the form included with these Rules of Evidence should be completed and presented to the judges with the ballots, and the plaintiff/prosecution may offer evidence of truthful character during its case-in-chief.)

Rule 608 (b)

A Witness’s Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness

(b) Specific Instances of Conduct. Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness’s conduct in order to attack or support the witness’s character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of: (1) the witness; or (2) another witness whose character the witness being cross-examined has testified about.

Rule 609 (a)

Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction

(a) In General. The following rules apply to attacking a witness’s character for truthfulness by evidence of a criminal conviction:

1. for a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year, the evidence: (A) must be admitted, subject to Rule 403, in a civil case or in a criminal case in which the witness is not a defendant; and (B) must be admitted in a criminal case in which the witness is a defendant, if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to that defendant; and

2. for any crime regardless of the punishment, the evidence must be admitted if the court can determine that establishing the elements of the crime required proving – or the witness’s admitting – a dishonest act or false statement.

Rule 609 (b)

Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction

(b) Limit on Using the Evidence After 10 Years. This subdivision (b) applies if more than 10 years have passed since the witness’s conviction or release from confinement for it, whichever is later. Evidence of the conviction is admissible only if:

1. its probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect; and

2. the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to use it so that the party has a fair opportunity to contest its use.

Rule 609 (c)

Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction

(c) Effect of a Pardon, Annulment, or Certificate of Rehabilitation. Evidence of a conviction is not admissible if:

1. the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, certificate of rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding that the person has been rehabilitated, and the person has not been convicted of a later crime punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year; or

2. the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of innocence.

Rule 609 (d)

Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction

(d) Juvenile Adjudications. Evidence of a juvenile adjudication is admissible under this rule only if:

1. it is offered in a criminal case;

2. the adjudication was of a witness other than the defendant;

3. an adult’s conviction for that offense would be admissible to attack the adult’s credibility; and

4. admitting the evidence is necessary to fairly determine guilt or innocence.

Rule 609 (e)

Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction

(e) Pendency of an Appeal. A conviction that satisfies this rule is admissible even if an appeal is pending. Evidence of the pendency is also admissible

Rule 610

Religious Beliefs or Opinions: Evidence of a witness’s religious beliefs or opinions is not admissible to attack or support the witness’s credibility.

Rule 611 (a)

Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence

(a) Control by the Court; Purposes. The court should exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to:

1. make those procedures effective for determining the truth;

2. avoid wasting time; and

3. protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.

Rule 611 (b)

Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence

(b) Scope of Examinations. The initial cross examination is not limited to matters discussed on direct examination. Re-direct and re-cross examination are permitted. But any re-direct or re-cross examination may not go beyond the subject matter of the examination immediately preceding it and matters affecting the witness’s credibility.

Rule 611 (c)

Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence

(c) Leading Questions. Leading questions should not be used on direct examination except as necessary to develop the witness’s testimony. Ordinarily the court should allow leading questions:

1. on cross- examination; and

2. when a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party.

Rule 612

Writing Used to Refresh a Witness’s Memory: A witness may use any material provided by AMTA to refresh memory either during or prior to giving testimony.

Rule 613 (a)

Witness’s Prior Statement

(a) Showing or Disclosing the Statement During Examination. When examining a witness about the witness’s prior statement, a party need not show it or disclose its contents to the witness. But the party must, on request, show it or disclose its contents to an adverse party’s attorney.

Rule 613 (b)

Witness’s Prior Statement

(b) Extrinsic Evidence of a Prior Inconsistent Statement. Unless the court orders otherwise, extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent statement may not be admitted until after the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it. This subdivision (b) does not apply to an opposing party’s statement under Rule 801(d)(2).

Rule 614

Court’s Calling or Examining a Witness: Calling and/or examining of a witness by the court is not allowed.

Rule 615 (a)

Excluding Witnesses from the Courtroom; Preventing an Excluded Witness’s Access to Trial Testimony.
(a) Excluding Witnesses. At a party’s request, the court must order witnesses constructively excluded so that they cannot hear other witnesses’ testimony. But this rule does not authorize constructively excluding:

1. a party who is a natural person;

2. an officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person, after being designated as the party’s representative;

3. omitted;

4. (4) a person authorized by a statute provided in the case materials to be present.

Rule 615 (b)

Excluding Witnesses from the Courtroom; Preventing an Excluded Witness’s Access to Trial Testimony.

(b) Additional Orders to Prevent Disclosing and Accessing Testimony. An order under (a) operates only to exclude witnesses from the courtroom. But the court may also, by order:

1. prohibit disclosure of trial testimony to witnesses who are excluded from the courtroom; and

2. prohibit excluded witnesses from accessing trial testimony.
   
   (Comment: This rule does not permit the actual exclusion of students portraying witnesses. Rather, it allows for the constructive exclusion of some witnesses.)