You are on page 1of 8

Evidence Outline Professor Wasserstrom Fall 2002 Part 1: Relevance Relevance FRE 401 – Definition of “Relevant Evidence” “Relevant

Evidence” means 1) evidence 2) having tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consesequence* to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. * Key element fact must be of consequence. If the fact has no bearing on the issue at hand it is not relevant. FRE 402 – Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible All relevant evidence is admissible, except otherwise provided by the Constitution, Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. Evidence which is not relevant is inadmissible. U.S. v. Jones (1999) – Ct. reversed refusal to admit prior crimes evidence where exclusion would probably have diminished the credibility of the defendant. Evidence was relevant to ∆’s reasonable belief of the capabilities of the victim. (1) Conditional Relevance FRE 104 (a) – Questions of admissibility generally. Prelimianry questions concerning the qualifications to be a witness, existence of privilege, or admissibility of evidence shall be determined by Ct. by provisions of (b) FRE 104 (b) – Relevance conditioned on fact When relevancy is a condition of fact the Ct. shall admit it subject to the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of fulfillment of condition. Cox v. State (1998) – Evidence allowed because it is highly reasonable to believe ∆ knew of the evidence; ∆ was in inner of one who definitely knew the evidence -- evidence admitted pending proof that ∆ knew of evidence (condition) ∆ in inner circle likely knew (condition met) (2) Relevance and Unfair Prejudice FRE 403 – 1) Although Relevant, 2) evidence may be excluded 3) if probative value is substantially outweighed by 4) the danger of unfair prejudice 5) confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, 6) or by considerations of (a) undue delay, (b) waste of time, or (c) needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Evidence Fall 2002

Evidence excluded because there was a great risk that ∆ would be unfairly prejudiced but stipulation must be made that ∆ was in another state and used while there used false name. Effects of Stipulations US v. Meyers (1978) . etc. C. examines probative value as circumstantial evidence of guilt depends on the degree of confidence from which four inferences can be drawn: (a) from the defendant’s behavior to flight.∆ accused of fleeing because of guilt of prior crime. Jackson (1975) . Rule: Applications of mathematical techniques in the proof of facts ina criminal case must be critically examined in the view of the substantial unfairness to the defendant which may result D. US (1997) . Collins (1968) . supra. (FRE 403 read in light of FRE 102) Old Chief v.A. Rule: Flight instruction is improper unless the evidence is sufficient to furnish reasonable support for all of the four necessary inferences. Rule: Relevant evidence may be excluded when its risk of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value. Ct. Photos and other inflammatory evidence State v. Evidence of Flight US v. Probability Evidence People v. Rule: Stipulations may be used to bring in evidence which is relevant in a manner such as not to unfairly prejudice the jury.∆’s motion to preclude evidence of use of false name upon arrest. and (d) from consciousness of guilt concerning the crime charges to actual guilt of the crime charged. Specialized Rules of Evidence ** Add in tables** Evidence Fall 2002 .Π offered to stipulate to his prior crime rather than allow a full record. (c) from consciousness of guilt to consciousness of guilt concerning the crime charged. extend the time of trial. (b) from flight to consciousness of guilt.Π used mathematical data to convict ∆. Bocharski (2001) – Gruesome photographs that were not used in trial were determined to have been improperly admitted but the judgment was not overruled because the admission of the photographs did not seem to have unfairly prejudiced the jury (they never viewed them and even they had the testimony gave them an accurate picture) B. in view of the availability of alternative evidence of the same point.

C. (2000) – Evidence reached during settlement negotiations that justified Π’s actions should be allowed. This rule does not require that the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose. Subsequent Remedial Measures FRE 407 – Subsequent Remedial Measures When. measures are taken that. Rule: The spirit if FRE 408 should be considered. Evidence Fall 2002 . a defect in a product. Inc. after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an event. or need for a warning or instruction. such as proving ownership. a defect in the product’s design. or control. or impeachment.Π contends she should have been allowed to explain why she consulted an attorney before visiting a doctor. Rule: FRE 411 does not absolutely bar evidence of liability insurance when the evidence is offered for another purpose such as proof of agency.A. ownership. McDonald (1997) . Universal Bancard Systems.. Compromise Offers and Payment pf Medical Expenses FRE 408 (civil cases) – Compromise and Offers top Compromise Forbids admission of statements made during settlement negotiations unless offered for another purpose. culpable conduct. FRE 409 – Payment of Medical and Similar Expenses Evidence of offering to pay medical expenses is not admissible to prove liability Bankcard America. Inc.Debate as to whether rule should be apply product defect cases. if controverted. Tuer v. v. Liability Insurance FRE 411 – Liability Insurance Evidence of liability insurance is not admissible to show whether a person acted negligently or wrongfully. .Π’s husband not given medicine and died due to the hospital’s policy which was changed after Π’s husband’s death. control. or feasibility of precautionary measures. ∆ should not be allowed to prevail simply because the evidence necessary to convict was rendered during settlement negotiations. would have made the harm less likely to occur evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove negligence. if taken previously. Does not require the exclusion of evidence that would have been otherwise discoverable. McCoy (2001) . Rule: Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove culpability B. Williams v.

∆ wanted to include evidence of immunity negotiations to give “consciousness of innocence.Admission could not only unfairly prejudice the ∆ but also confuse the jury. Proof of Motive C. Biaggi (1991) . Plea Discussions. Rule: Character is never an issue in criminal prosecution unless the defendant chooses to make it one. Proof of Identity 1. FRE 405 ?? People v. holds that exclusion of evidence prevented ∆ from receiving a fair trial. Zackowitz (1930) – Case to determine whether murder was premeditated. Trenkler (1995) – Evidence of previous bombs linked to ∆ to show his usual method for making bombs. Exceptions. Evidence Fall 2002 . Rule: In order to use evidence Π must show that there exists a high degree of similarity between the other act and the charged crime. Pleas in Criminal Cases FRE 410 – Inadmissibility of Pleas.D. and elongate the trial. Rule: Evidence of ∆’s innocent state of mind is not excluded even when this evidence is obtained during negotiations.” Ct. Evidence of a particular character trait may not be admitted to show that a person acted in conformity with that trait. Proof of Modus Operandi US v. Other Crimes ** -. and Related Statements ** Add info on Rule US v. Part 2: Character Evidence (1) The Ban on Propensity Evidence FRE 404 – Character Evidence Not Admissible to Prove Conduct. removing their focus from the case at hand. Proof of Knowledge B. (2) Routes Around the Box A.

US v. Smith (1915) . ∆ wishes to use reverse 404)b) Rule: When prejudice to the ∆ not a factor. Only identifiers two white people. Mound (1999) Evidence Fall 2002 . a preliminary finding that the acts occurred. allows in evidence that two previous wives died in similar ways. (4) Propensity Evidence in Sexual Assault Cases FRE 413 FRE 414 FRE 415 US v. (3) The Huddleston Standard Huddleston v. D. US (1988) – Huddleston indicted on charges of buying and selling stolen goods. Guardia (1998) – Doctor accused of sexual assault. US v. Π wishes to bring in testimony of other women who claim that they were assaulted.∆’s wife dies in bath. Rule: To be admitted under FRE 413 three requirements must be met: 1) the ∆ is accused of an offense of sexual assault. Stevens (1991) – ∆ accused of armed robbery and sexual assault. 2) evidence proffered is evidence of the defendant’s commission of another offense of sexual assault. Evidence was said to show the sheer improbability of this occurring three times without the assistance of ∆. the admissibility of ‘reverse 404(b)’ evidence depends on a straightforward balancing of the evidence’s probative value against considerations such as undue waste of time and confusion of issues. Ct. Narrative Identity (Res Gestae) E. Absence of Accident F. 3) Evidence must be relevant. Similar crime committed where black man did not identify ∆. Evidence denied because of 403 balancing. Rule: Evidence may be introduced to show that it is highly unlikely that the ∆ was uninvolved. Doctrine of Chances Rex v. Evidence admitted of prior similar transactions. Rule: A court need not make. prior to admitting post acts introduced to show motive or knowledge. Even in FRE 413 cases FRE 403 balancing must still be conducted.

Π introduced testimony of his own reputation. the Π may cross-examine witnesses as to specific acts of misconduct. Π sought to admit evidence of usual habit in servicing. Anderson (1986) .(5) Proof of the Defendant’s and the Victim’s Character FRE 404 (a) FRE 405(a) Michelson v. Virginia Chemicals Inc. Securities and Exchange Commission v. (1997) – SEC moved to preclude the admission of character evidence in this civil case. (7) Evidence of Habit FRE 406 Halloran v. US (1948) . Towers Financial Corp. Rule: Evidence of habit may be admitted but party must be able to show on voir dire a sufficient number of instances of conduct. Part 3: Impeaching Witnesses (1) General Principles and Prior Convictions FRE 403(a)(3) FRE 608 FRE 609 Evidence Fall 2002 . Rule: All civil cases do not provide an exception to the rule against character witnesses. Evidence of habit was allowed to show usual practice of Π. Evidence of erratic behavior when dealing with police officers was properly admitted under FRE 406 as evidence of habit. (6) Proof of Defendant’s and Victim’s Character in Civil Case Perrin v. Court excludes character witnesses from testifying on ∆’s behalf under FRE 404(a)(1).Π claimed to have been entrapped by the official he was alleged to have bribed. (1977) – Π a mechanic was injured while servicing a vehicle.Π alleged ∆ and another police officer deprived Π’s son of his civil rights when they shot and killed him while they were attempting to obtain information about a traffic accident in which he had been involved. Rule: When character evidence is used circumstantially. Rule: Once ∆ places ∆’s reputation at issue. only reputation and opinion are acceptable forms of proof.

victim's grandmother's husband. for impeachment purposes. bad chastity and virtue. Convictions were allowed except for prior kidnapping charge. Brewer (1978) . court noted that defendant's conviction rested on trier of fact's credibility determinations because there was no physical evidence of sexual assault in this case. 1) the nature of the crime 2) the time of the conviction and the witness’ subsequent history 3) similarity between the past crime and the charged crime 4) importance of defendant’s testimony 5) the centrality of the credibility issue US v.US v. Rule: Testimony regarding victim's past false accusations of sexual assault was not barred by the rape shield statute. La. the probative value of this conviction was greatly outweighed by the prejudice.Victim told her mother's friend that defendant. Evidence Fall 2002 .∆ accused of various sex crimes. Rule: The first issue to be addresses is the time limit. The court found that the question presented to the prosecutrix herself. art. 412. Evidence of stepfather’s character. and it went to her credibility from which the jury was asked to say she did consent. On appeal. was proper assuming that defendant could be considered on trial either on the charge of rape.∆ moved to suppress the introduction of certain past convictions as impeachment evidence. Then there are five factors in determining whether the crime meets the FRE 403 standard.∆ objected to the trial court allowing. Olden v. and also with an assault with the intent to commit a rape. Kentucky (1988) .Defendant was tried on an indictment charging him with the crime of rape. was not permitted to cross-examine accusing witness Matthews regarding a relationship ∆ claimed Williams was trying to protect by accusing him of sexual assault. Code Evid. the use of his prior guilty pleas to two unarmed bank robberies. The court reasoned that in such a case the material issue was on the willingness or reluctance of the prosecutrix. The evidence should not have been allowed so the case was remanded. Rule: Bank robbery is not per se a crime of dishonesty as used in FRE 609 (a)(2) (2) The Rape Shield Law FRE 412 People v. Sibley (1895) – Stepfather accused of molesting stepdaughter. had touched her in inappropriate areas for years. whether she had not had previous criminal connection with other men. Smith (1999) . or for an assault and battery with intent to commit that crime. State v. Testimony regarding victim's prior allegations of sexual molestation were barred on basis of the rape shield statute. State v. Court concluded that trial court's ruling that excluded this testimony was not harmless because jury verdict rested entirely on their perception of victim's veracity. Brackeen (1992) . Abbot (1938) . It was said to prejudice the stepfather too much. was disallowed. Rule: Case prior to rape shield laws.

and felonious assault.∆ claims that his constitutional rights were violated because he was unable to tell his full version of the story. Rule: ∆ cannot use evidence to present the victim as a bad person though some of the evidence would possibly undermine the credibility of the victim.∆ wanted to introduce evidence that the victim was characterized as a bimbo. On appeal. Stephens v. Knox (1992) . but cross-examination as to general credibility was not and petitioner's crossexamination was an attack on the witness's general credibility. Miller (1994) . The court also held that the exclusion of the testimony regarding the prior rape accusation did not implicate petitioner's constitutional right to present a defense.A jury convicted petitioner prisoner of the rape. etc. Rule: ∆ does not have to be able to tell their full accounting if it infringes the right’s of the victim unnecessarily. Boggs v. US v.Rule: The confrontation Clause mandates that a defendant be permitted to cross-examine a witness on any relevant matter. Collins (2001) . Rule: Restriction on petitioner's cross examination did not implicate the Confrontation Clause and did not trammel petitioner's constitutional right to mount a full and meaningful defense. Evidence Fall 2002 . This was not allowed though the credibility of the victim was in question. kidnapping. and appellant was not denied his constitutional right to testify in his own defense where the trial court properly balanced the state's interests with appellant's right to testify when it excluded the testimony at issue. motive or prejudice was constitutionally protected. The court affirmed the order of the district court that convicted appellant of attempted rape where the district court was not concerned with whether the state misapplied its own rape shield statute. the court held the Confrontation Clause was not violated when petitioner was precluded from cross-examining the victim on an alleged prior false accusation of rape because crossexamination as to bias.