Evidence Outline
FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 401/RELEVANCE
3:30 -Statements related to polygraph tests besides results (e.g., (un)willingness to take)
-1/2 of courts say polygraph related statements are relevant
-1/2 of courts say polygraph related statements are irrelevant
6:00
-Corroboration Evidence (e.g., victim actually committed the act he allegedly told the defendant about)
-1/2 of courts say corroboration evidence is relevant
-1/2 of courts say corroboration evidence is irrelevant
-Evidence is always irrelevant under Rule 401 when it doesn’t relate to the elements of any claim or defense
HARMLESS ERROR
-Incorrect evidentiary rulings don’t automatically require reversal; look at the weight of the other evidence and determine whether it was plain error affecting substantial rights (Rule 103(a))
CONDITIONAL RELEVANCE
Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b)
-When the relevance of evidence depends on establishing a conditional fact, the judge should admit it, upon or subject to determining that a reasonable jury could find the conditional fact by a preponderance of the evidence
-Allows for admissibility if it’s a close call
-The conditional fact can be established by inference
-“Subject to” admissions require an offer of proof
-If that evidence is not later provided, opposing counsel can move to strike the evidence
RULE 403 BALANCING
Federal Rule of Evidence 403
– Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
-Broad discretion to trial judge; reversed only for abuse of discretion; same with all discretionary rulings
-If failure to object, must demonstrate plain error on appeal
Tougher to reverse if you don’t object.
-Gruesome Evidence (e.g., autopsy photos)
-Typically admissible unless
-blown up
-altered or
-irrelevant to any issue at trial
-Corroboration Evidence
-Of courts finding it is relevant under Rule 401 (50%)
-1/2 of courts say it passes the Rule 403 balancing test (25% all courts)
-1/2 of courts say it fails the Rule 403 balancing test (25% all courts)
-Unfair Prejudice
-Care less about unfair prejudice to the prosecution
-Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply at the sentencing stage
-But courts still use reasonableness test to determine admissibility
FLIGHT
-Flight – Four (Three) step test for determining whether flight evidence passes 403
One: From defendant’s behavior to flight?
Two: From flight to consciousness of guilt ? (consider prior convictions; similarity & severity)
Three: From consciousness of guilt to consciousness of guilt concerning the crime charged? (consider outstanding crimes; proximity)
Four: From consciousness of guilt to consciousness of guilt concerning the crime charged.
-Evidence of Non-Flight is almost never admissible as circumstantial evidence of an innocent state of mind
STIPULATIONS
-A Stipulation is an agreement or concession by both parties upon certain facts and/or issues
-You should ask for a stipulation when you are seeking to admit or exclude evid
greed to settle for a certain $$)
-to impeach (plaintiff/defendant admitted fault; now testifying to the contrary)
-Lawsuit=a claim; otherwise look to degree to which litigation was anticipated
-Also inadmissible under Rule 408 are documents prepared for settlement negotiations
-Such evidence is admissible to prove other purposes, such as
-witness bias (multiple party situation)
-negating a contention of undue delay (continuing damages situation)
-obstruct a criminal investigation (drunk driving situations
-other purposes include accord & satisfaction
-Rule 408 only covers past alleged liability, not future alleged liability
Federal Rule of Evidence 409
-Evidence of furnishing or offering or promising to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses is not admissible to prove liability for the injury
-Admissible to prove other purposes such as:
-bias (multiple party situation)
-Similar expenses includes things like ambulance services
-Rule 409 only covers the offer, not related statements (unlike 408)
Federal Rule of Evidence 411
-Evidence that a person had/did not have liability insurance is inadmissible upon issue of whether he acted:
-negligently (e.g. you acted less safely because you had insurance) or
otherwise wrongfully
-But not to prove other things such as agency, ownership, control, or bias
-Agency
