Evidence Lore Fall 2016
I. Purpose of trial system:
A. Resolve disputes
B. Ascertain truth/guilt
C. Protect rights
D. Assign liability
II. Truth seeking features of trials:
A. Adversary system – two sides trying to prove their side of the story should be upheld
B. Bifurcated system (judge/jury)
1. Judge instructs on law – controls procedure
2. Jury (lay decision makers)
III. Witness concerns:
A. Bias
B. Credibility
C. First-hand knowledge
D. Perception
E. Memory
F. Competence – ability to communicate
G. How to ensure are telling truth?
1. Cross exam – points out inconsistencies, biases, credibility
2. Oaths – threat of perjury
3. Demeanor
IV. Relevance
A. Common sense inference & factual theory of case
1. Used to explain why a pice of the story fits into your theory of the facts
2. FRE 401 – Evi. is relevant if . . . (a) having any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be w/o the evi; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action
3. Two step process:
a) Logical relevancy – describes rel. btwn. item of evi. and proposition it is offered to prove
(1) NOT a high burden
(2) Fact makes something more or less likely to have happened
(a) Ex. Joe owned a .38 > makes more likely he committed murder
b) Materiality – describes rel. btwn. proposition and the issue in the case
(1) Evi. has to be related to a fact of consequence in this case
(2) Examples of materiality:
(a) Elem. of crime
(b) Cause of action
(c) Defense
(d) Facts w/i theory of case
i) Motive
ii) Ident.
(e) Credibility of witness
(f) Background facts
4. FRE 402
a) All relevant evi. is admissible, except as otherwise provided by…
b) Constit.
c) Acts of Cong.
d) Rules of Evi.
e) Evi. which is not relevant is inadmissible
B. FRE 403 – exclusion or relevant evi. on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time
1. ALWAYS raise issue
2. Strongly favors inclusion
3. Relevant evi. may be excluded if probative value is substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of evi.
a) 3 step process:
(1) Determine probative value of proffered evi.
(2) Ident. presence of dangers or efficient considerations
(3) Balance the probative value against dangers/considerations
b) Considerations:
(1) Prosecutor’s need for evi.
(2) Degree of probative worth on partic. occasion
(3) Prejudicial effect
(4) Effectiveness of limiting jury instruction
(5) How central point is
(6) Need for partic. evi.
(7) Alternatives
V. Char. evi. (prior bad acts)
A. FRE 105 – Evi. may be admissible to prove one fact, or for one person, but inadmissible to prove another
B. FRE 404(a) – char. evi. NOT admissible for propensity purposes except under limited circum. (6 circum.)
1. Char. evi. – based upon a char. trait that
4. Can be used in civil or criminal
5. Covers crimes, wrongs, or acts – NOT ONLY prior convictions
VI. FRE 104(a) – prelim. evidentiary hearing
A. Hold 104 hearing btwn. both lawyers & judge
B. Make evidentiary determinations pre-trial
C. NOT bound by rules of evi.
1. Except those w/ respect to privileges
2. Can consider evi. w/o regard to whether evi. will be admissible
D. Standard – preponderance of the evi.
VII. 104(b) – relevancy depending on whether fact exists
A. When relevancy of evi. depends on whether a fact exists, prof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist
1. Court may admit proposed evi. on the condition that proof be introduced later
B. Intervening fact may be determined where there is sufficient proof
1. Prima facie standard – must be reasonable evi. that jury could find fact to be true
C. NOT disputing whether ultimate fact is relevant, but rather whether intervening fact has been proven to sufficient level
1. Example Leslie & Joe had a life insur. policy on Brooke
a) Logical relevance = Joe wanted to kill Brooke, but accidentally killed Leslie instead
b) Intervening fact = Joe needed to know he was a beneficiary of the policy
