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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. Hearsay Evidentiary Hypothesis Evidentiary Hypothesis If someone (not the witness) says something, it is SML that it is true. + Makes Fact SML Proffered Evidence Fact Alice told me that she would have voted “no.” 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) Proffered Evidence FOC Fact Legal Outcome Makes Fact SML Affects Legal Outcome Zola had a 2.8 and got a Yahoo PE LO D Wins -- S Would Have Gotten Scholarship 3 members would have voted “Yes”

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 + Makes Fact SML Proffered Evidence Fact Zola had a 2.8 GPA and got a Yahoo 3 members would have voted “Yes”

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

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

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