1. Problem 1

2. 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.’”

3. Problem # 1(a) Charles: “I would not have voted for Steve if I had known”

4. Problem 1(a) P Wins -- S Would Not Have Gotten Scholarship I would not have voted for S if I had known FOC ? LO PE Proffered Evidence Legal Outcome Fact Makes Fact SML Affects Legal Outcome

5. C What is it offered to prove? 3 P Wins -- S Would Not Have Gotten Scholarship I would not have voted for S if I had known ? Proffered Evidence Legal Outcome Fact Makes Fact SML Affects Legal Outcome

6. C’s Vote R 3 P Wins -- S Would Not Have Gotten Scholarship I would not have voted for S if I had known C would not have voted for S Proffered Evidence Legal Outcome Fact Makes Fact SML Affects Legal Outcome

7. C Majority R P Wins -- S Would Not Have Gotten Scholarship I would not have voted for S if I had known 3 would not have voted for S Proffered Evidence Legal Outcome Fact Makes Fact SML Affects Legal Outcome

8. How does PE make it more likely that three would have voted “no”? P Wins -- S Would Not Have Gotten Scholarship I would not have voted for S if I had known 3 would not have voted for S Proffered Evidence Legal Outcome Fact Makes Fact SML Affects Legal Outcome

9. Evidentiary Hypothesis C 3 I would not have voted for S if I had known 3 would not have voted for S Proffered Evidence Fact Evidentiary Hypothesis If 1 votes no, it is sml that 2 others would also vote no. + Makes Fact SML

10. Problem # 1(b) Charles: “Alice told me that she would have voted ‘No.’”

11. Problem 1(b) P Wins -- S Would Not Have Gotten Scholarship Alice told me that she would have voted “no.” Alice really would have voted “No.” FOC LO PE Proffered Evidence Legal Outcome Fact Makes Fact SML Affects Legal Outcome

12. How does PE of what Alice said make it sml that Alice would have voted “No”? P Wins -- S Would Not Have Gotten Scholarship Alice told me that she would have voted “no.” Alice really would have voted “No.” P Proffered Evidence Legal Outcome Fact Makes Fact SML Affects Legal Outcome

13. Hearsay Evidentiary Hypothesis Alice told me that she would have voted “no.” Proffered Evidence Fact Makes Fact SML Evidentiary Hypothesis If someone (not the witness) says something, it is SML that it is true. + Alice really would have voted “No.”

14. Problem # 1(c) Document: “One of two other recipients had a 2.8 GPA.”

15. Problem 1(c) D Wins -- S Would Have Gotten Scholarship 3 members would have voted “Yes” FOC Zola had a 2.8 and got a Yahoo LO PE Proffered Evidence Legal Outcome Fact Makes Fact SML Affects Legal Outcome

16. Better Grades EH Evidentiary Hypothesis Evidence that members voted for candidate w/2.8 makes it SML that they would have voted for one w/3.0 + 3 members would have voted “Yes” Zola had a 2.8 GPA and got a Yahoo Proffered Evidence Fact Makes Fact SML

17. 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.”

18. Hearsay Evidentiary Hypothesis Dan said, “Chair is a liar.” Proffered Evidence Fact Makes Fact SML Evidentiary Hypothesis If someone (not the witness) says something, it is SML that it is true. + Chair really is a liar. Tom

19. Character EH Dan said, “Chair is a liar.” Proffered Evidence Fact Makes Fact SML Evidentiary Hypothesis If a witness is a liar, it is SML that his or her testimony was false. + Alice never talked to the Chair about the vote. Chair would have voted “Yes” even if he knew GPA Chair was lying when he testified. Tom

20. Conditional Relevance EH: If a witness is a liar, it is SML that his testimony was false. Chair = Charles Connecting Fact + Charles really is a liar. Dan said, “Chair is a liar.” Proffered Evidence Fact Makes Fact SML