Instructiоns: Assume thаt аll оbjectiоns аre timely and properly made. Analyze the admissibility of the evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) unless the result is different under California Evidence Code (CEC), in which case discuss the distinction. Tom Johnson is charged with assault with a deadly weapon arising out of a fight outside a bar. The prosecution alleges that Johnson struck John Thompson in the face with a heavy glass beer mug, causing serious injuries. Johnson claims self-defense. According to Johnson, Thompson approached him aggressively, threatened him, and threw the first punch. Johnson admits striking Thompson with the mug but claims he did so only because he reasonably believed Thompson was about to seriously injure him. Before trial, the prosecution announces that it intends to introduce evidence that Johnson was convicted three years earlier of assaulting another man outside a different bar. In that incident, Johnson punched the man in the face after an argument. The prosecution argues that the conviction demonstrates Johnson's "violent nature" and makes it more likely that Johnson was the aggressor in the present case. Johnson objects. The prosecution alternatively argues that the prior incident demonstrates that Johnson used a similar method of responding to confrontations and therefore tends to show that Johnson, rather than Thompson, was the aggressor. 25 points Johnson seeks to introduce evidence that Thompson was arrested two years earlier after allegedly getting into a fight outside a nightclub. The arrest did not result in a conviction. Johnson wants to call a witness who will testify that Thompson had a reputation in the community for being a violent person. Johnson also wants the witness to testify that Thompson had a reputation for "starting fights." The prosecution objects. 25 points The defense then seeks to introduce evidence that, approximately six months before the charged incident, Thompson and Johnson had another confrontation. According to the proposed testimony, Thompson shoved Johnson during an argument, Johnson walked away, and the confrontation ended without violence. Johnson argues that this incident demonstrates that he had previously retreated rather than responded violently to Thompson, and therefore supports his claim that he reasonably feared Thompson on the later occasion. The prosecution objects that the incident is irrelevant because the earlier confrontation did not involve violence. 25 points Finally, the prosecution seeks to introduce testimony that approximately two weeks before the charged incident, Johnson told a friend: "If Thompson ever comes after me again, I'm going to make sure he never bothers me again." The prosecution argues that the statement demonstrates Johnson's intent and motive and tends to rebut his claim that he acted only because he was suddenly and unexpectedly attacked. Johnson objects that the statement is evidence of his violent character and should therefore be excluded. 25 points
Pоstmоderns generаlly reject the pоssibility of universаl аnd absolute truth.