Evidence Outline

EVIDENCE OATES FALL 2017
 
I. RELEVANCE & GENERAL PROVISIONS
Rule 401 – Test for Relevant Evidence
Evidence is relevant if:
Material – fact is of consequence in determining the answer (do we care about it); and
Witness’s credibility always material.
Probative – any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the Evidence.
“any tendency” = not a very high standard, very small hurdle
U.S v. James: James said ∆ told her that he killed people, so she gave her daughter a gun in self-defense. Documents of Ogden’s arrest Not relevant to show that she reasonably believed he killed someone, BUT RELEVANT to prove that she is credible and Ogden did actually say these things to her.
Rule 402 – General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence
Relevant evidence is admissible unless it is not (only testing if other Rules keep it out).
Irrelevant evidence is never admissible.
Remember “liberal thrust” in favor of admissibility
Rule 104 – Preliminary Questions
(a) The court must decide any preliminary question (everything except conditional relevance) about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible. In so deciding, the court is not bound by evidence rules (can consider inadmissible stuff), except those on privilege. Judge is making a determination IN HIS OWN HEAD by A preponderance of the evidence!
(b) When the relevance of evidence depends on whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist. The court may admit the proposed evidence on the condition that the proof be introduced later.
This is for conditional relevance only! (knowledge)
Problem 1.7: ∆ allegedly kills wife b/c son isn’t his. Π offers evidence that ∆ killed wife so son wouldn’t find out truth. Π theory is relevant if it is true (conditional relevance – knowledge). ∆ says husband did not know that wife would tell the son. Judge says it is likely that wife told husband that she would tell son. Why else would she tell her husband if she didn’t also plan on telling son.
HUDDLESTON STANDARD: JUDGE PUTS HIMSELF IN THE SHOES OF THE JURY and says the jury MIGHT find in the future by a preponderance of the evidence that the fact does exist (lower standard bc judge is saying jury might find…)
Can’t use inadmissible evidence in (b) because have to consider only what jury will hear.
Witness testifies at trial that ∆ robbed her house. ∆ gets acquitted. Judge allows witness to testify at bank robbery trial that ∆ robbed her house. ∆ objects under 104(b) she can only testify if he actually robbed her house but he was acquitted. Doesn’t matter it is a different standard. Acquitted because not beyond a reasonable doubt. Here judge has to conclude that jury could find by preponderance of the evidence that ∆ robbed her house.
Cox v. State: ∆ charged with killing victim, suspected motivation was retaliation for victim accusing ∆’s friend of molesting his daughter and negative outcome at a bail reduction hearing; Court held that the E was admissible only if it could be preliminarily determined that ∆ knew about the outcome of the hearing, and the record contained E to support that inference.
Rule 403 – Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice…
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following (NOT a such as rule): Let E in unless it is really prejudicial.
Unfair prejudice
All evidence is prejudicial bc that’s the adversary system.
Focus on “unfair” prejudice – Will it enflame the jury or blind their thinking?
State v. Bocharski – Use of photos generally OK except if more gross than probative; gross photos were primarily to incite passion or inflame jury
Commonwealth v. Serge – use of Computer generated animation OK bc not too much for jury to handle bc didn’t have sounds, facial expressions, or life-like movements. showed the prosecution of how the murder occurred based on expert testimony, but did not inflame the passions of the jury and provided a clearer picture of what the experts were saying, money not an issue
United States v. James: Rule 403 does not limit “unfair prejudice” to one side—can unfairly prejudice the jury against the victim as well
US v. Myers – flight evidence is relevant but unfairly prejudicial most of the time. probative value of evidence of flight to show consciousness of guilt based on 4 inferences:
From defendant’s behavior to flight (fled)
From flight to consciousness of guilt (fled because you thought you were guilty)
From consciousness of guilt to consciousness of guilt concerning the crime (thought you were guilty for crime charged)
From consciousness of guilt concerning the crime charged to actual guilt of the crime charged (actually guilty for the crime charged)
Myers: more remote in time the alleged flight is from the commission or accusation of an offense, the greater the likelihood that it resulted from something other than guilt—no evidence here that defendant fled because of Pennsylvania robbery alone and not the other robberies he committed
Most courts don’t allow evidence of non-flight. There are many reasons not to run, not only because you are innocent so not very probative. Also not substantially prejudicial, but court still doesn’t let it in.
Confusing the issues/Misleading the jury
People v. Collins – probability evidence can confuse/mislead bc jury becomes overwhelmed by math.
However, not all math is bad; usually allow DNA math bc done correctly
RULE: Mathematical odds are not admissible as evidence to identify a defendant in a criminal proceeding as long as the odds are based on estimates, the validity of which has not been demonstrated.
Undue delay
Wasting time
Or needlessly producing cumulative evidence
“May” = trial court judge has discretion!
Note à 403 (or like balancing test) applies to EVERYTHING in this course EXCEPT Rule 609 truth crimes!
 Rule 609 truth crimes do not get 403 analysis OR some other related balancing test
Potential considerations:
Will limiting instruction bring balance back?
Is there alternative/less prejudicial evidence that gets you to the same place?
Sanitizing the evidence/Controlling unfair prejudice – only let some things in, not all
Old Chief v. US – creates very narrow exception to general rule
General rule: from Parr v. US prosecution gets to put on a story bc that’s what the jury wants to hear; they don’t want to have info withheld or else they go against the withholding party; specific details better than general. ∆ may not stipulate or admit its way out of the full evidentiary force of the case as the Gov’t chooses to present it.
Exception: Old Chief—wanted to stipulate that he had committed a felony to avoid prosecution offering proof that it had been a violent felony: in the very limited circumstance of 18 U.S.C. 922 (being in possession of a gun when have a prior felony conviction), can stipulate that the element is fulfilled (only reason here not to accept the stipulation is to get in the violent nature of the previous felony and bias the jury against Old Chief) just need the status not the details. Very narrow exception.
If can’t do any of the above to bring back balance, then 403 will keep it out!!
Rule 105 – Limiting Instructions
If the court admits evidence that is admissible against a party or for a purpose – but not against another party or for another purpose – the court, on timely request, must restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.
In ruling on 403 if judge decides it can get in, he will decide if 105 will solve the 403 problem.
If offered against ∆ A but not code