A couple of general comments:
1) Don't fight the facts. Everything you need to answer the question is provided. If I didn't give you any facts, they are not important to the question. Whenever you start saying "assuming ___", stop.
2) Use the text of the actual rule as the starting point for your answer, rather than your potentially confused notes about what it says.
3) Several of you did not follow directions and provide word counts.
4) A complete answer explains the rule and applies it to the facts. If all you said was "under Rule 401, the evidence is irrelevant" without explaining what that means or what 401 says, you got less than full credit. Similarly, if all you said was "the evidence is admissible because it is relevant," you got less than full credit. Give me the rule, apply it, and tell me why it applies that way. You can do all that in 100 words, especially if you avoid repeating yourself and you avoid throat-clearing. Just dive into the answer with a rule, an explanation, and an application.
1) The motion is granted; the evidence is excluded. FRE 408(a)(1) prohibits evidence of “furnishing . . . a valuable consideration in compromising” a claim to prove the validity of a disputed claim or charge. The evidence of the settlement cannot be offered to show that Doodman was responsible for Vilson’s death and is guilty of the crime charged, the only possible relevancy on these facts. This does not fall within the exception in FRE 408(a)(2), because this is not conduct or statements during negotiations and the settlement was not of a claim brought by a public office or agency.
2) The evidence is irrelevant and thus not admissible (FRE 402); evidence is only relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than without the evidence where the fact is of consequence. (FRE 401). Doodman’s adoption has no logical connection to whether he was impaired or intentionally failed to provide aid following the accident. Even if relevant, the evidence should be excluded because the minimal probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Adopting his 42-year-old girlfriend makes Doodman look bad and may cause the jury to dislike him.
3) Statements that Doodman “smelled of alcohol” and having to roll down the window because of the smell of alcohol are both admissible under FRE 602, because the officers are testifying to what they perceived and did during their encounter with Doodman. The statement that Doodman “seemed intoxicated” also is admissible. A non-expert may testify in opinion, if rationally based on perception and helpful to the jury's understanding (FRE 701(a), (b)). “Intoxicated” is a characterization of Doodman’s behavior, based on the officer’s perception. The statement that Doodman “appeared impaired” is inadmissible, because the legal condition of impairment is not one the officer perceived.
4) Under FRE 404(a)(2)(A), the defense in a criminal case may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait to show that he acted in accordance with that trait on a particular occasion. The traits of being “caring and careful” and of never knowingly ignoring or failing to help are pertinent in this case, making it less likely that Doodman would intentionally fail to give aid to a person knowing that person was in danger. Under FRE 405(a), character traits may be proven by testimony in the form of an opinion, here Wore’s opinion as to Doodman’s character.
5) The Prosecution carried its burden of production that Doodman’s BAC was above .08. The burden of production shifted to Doodman, who did not rebut the basic fact (BAC) or presumed fact (impairment). This is a criminal case, so the court cannot instruct the jury to find a fact against the defendant. Impairment is an element, so the court instructs that the fact be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
“You may, but need not, find that Doodman’s blood-alcohol level is sufficient evidence of impairment. But impairment must, on all the evidence, be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”