Evidence Outline

 
Evidence
Kaye
Fall 2014
 
 
Logical Relevance – MOE 184, 185, Rules 401, 402, 901
A.      Applicable Rules
a.      Rule 401: Evidence is relevant if:
                                                            a.      It has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
                                                            b.      The fact is of consequence in determining the action.
                                                             c.      This crucial definition of relevancy sets up a pro-admissibility standard: evidence is relevant if it has any effect on the likelihood that a disputed fact is true. Relevant evidence can make it more likely or less likely that a disputed fact is true, but no piece of evidence will make a fact more and less likely to be true.
b.      Rule 402: Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provide otherwise:
                                                            a.      The United States Constitution
                                                            b.      A Federal Statute
                                                             c.      These rules; or
                                                            d.      Other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court
                                                            e.      In order to be admitted, evidence must satisfy Rule 401’s definition of relevance. However, some evidence that would satisfy that definition is still excluded, for various reasons of policy. For example, privileges and the rules about character evidence exclude material that meets the definition of relevance.
B.      Probativeness
a.      Evidence tends to prove or disprove a material fact or the point at issue. It is the relationship between an item of evidence and a matter properly provable in the case
b.      Evidence is relevant if it justifies a rational juror in shifting his or her assessment of the probability of a material fact – probability of material fact after considering the evidence differs from the probability of the material fact w/o considering the evidence
c.       Evidence itself doesn’t make something more probable – has to shift what the jury thinks is probable or not
d.      To convince a judge that the evidence is relevant, you should be able to present a chain of reasoning that goes from the evidence (and perhaps other premises) to a conclusion that is of consequence
e.      Chain of Inference – construct the argument that has the evidence as a premise and the material fact as a conclusion
C.      Prominent Cases
a.      Huddleston v. US –
                                                            a.      Huddleston stands for answering the quantum of evidence question. How strong does evidence of other acts have to be to show that the D committed the other act. (1. Prior conviction; 2. Beyond a reasonable doubt; 3. Clear and convincing evidence; 4. Preponderance of the evidence)
                                                            b.      Facts – D is charged with selling stolen goods. D denies knowledge that the merchandise was stolen. Gov. wants to introduce evidence of “other acts” under 404(b) to show similarity in conduct, thus evincing that D had knowledge the goods were stolen. Other acts evidence is testimony from store owner who claims that D offered to sell him large quantity of televisions at an extremely discounted rate. Evidence is allowed, the court issued a jury instruction limiting the jury’s consideration of the other acts evidence. D is convicted. Appeals court reversed on the grounds that the government failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that TVs were stolen.
                                                             c.      Issue – Whether the trial court must make a preliminary finding before “similar act” and other Rule 404(b) evidence is submitted to the jury
                                                            d.      Holding – (Huddleston Standard) – “Other act” evidence should be admitted if judge decides that there is sufficient evidence for the jury to reasonably find the conditional fact by a preponderance of the evidence
                                                            e.      Analysis – (1) Threshold inquiry for admission under 404(b) is whether that similar acts evidence is probative of a material issue other than character. (2) In order for similar acts evidence to be probative, government must establish that the D committed the previous act. 93) 404(b) demands admissions of evidence subject to 403 weighing standard. (4) 404(b) does not create additional judicial scrutiny over admissibility of evidence
                                                              f.      Rule – The Court must examine all the evidence in the case and decide whether the jury could reasonably find the conditional fact. The trial court may allow the proponent to introduce evidence and at a later point in the trial, assess whether sufficient evidence has been offered to permit the jury to make the requisite finding, if not the trial court must instruct the jury to disregard the evidence.
                                                            g.      Notes: D was concerned about protection from prejudice that may arise out of including “another act” unproven. Prejudice does not occur from judge’s preliminary finding, rather from four other sources of protection: (1) proper purpose requirements; (2) relevance requirement of 402, enforced through 104 (b); (3) trial court’s assessment under 403; and (4) trial court’s jury instructions to the jury for proper consideration of evidence under 105.
b.      Note – In states courts, there are various standards of evidence for the quantum of evidence of another crime.
c.       Tucker v