Evidence Outline

Evidence

Carroll

Spring 2012

1. What is evidence

a. Evidence Classifications

i. Direct Evidence vs. Circumstantial Evidence

· Direct Evidence: relies on actual knowledge (deduction)

o Goes directly to a material issue without inferences.

o Direct when facts are communicated by those who have actual knowledge by means of their senses

§ On issue of whether anyone had recently crossed a snow covered bridge, X testified he saw man cross bridge

· Circumstantial – relies on inference (induction)

o Evidence of a subsidiary of collateral fact form which, alone or together with other facts, the existence of a material issue can be inferred

§ On issue of whether anyone had recently crossed a snow covered bridge, X testified he saw human footprints on bridge

b. Jury Decision making

i. Juries make decisions via

· Evidence – inference – decision

· Given evidence, form inference via evidence, come to decision

ii. How Jury decides using evidence

· Deduction/Direct Evidence vs.

o Sammy on trial for robbing National City. Surveillance film captures image of a man robbing the bank with a gun. Jury compares film to Sammy seated at counsel table. Jury deduces that Sammy is the man on the film. Jury decides to convict.

· Induction/Circumstantial

o Sammy on trial for robbing National City. No surveillance film due to a technical problem. Maggie, Sammy’s gf, testifies that Sammy told her that he was low on funds and unless his ship cam in would have to knock off the National City branch. Jury induces that Sammy is the robber. Jury decides to convict

c. 2 Kinds of evidence

i. Words (ie testimonial)

ii. Things

· Writings/Documents – in written form, ie contract confession

· Tangible objects (ie real evidence)

d. Evidence Law

i. There are federal, state, and local rules of evidence

· Interpretation: precedent, legislative intent/history, legal academy

2. Threshold Admissibility Issues

a. Rule: Material and relevant evidence is admissible if competent

i. Material =The Proposititon to be proved

· To be material: Evidence must relate to a substantive legal issue in the case

o What issue is the evidence offered to prove

o Is that legal issue material to the substantive cause of action or defense in the case?

o Substantial legal issue/law:1) elements of charged crime; 2) elements of cause of action; 3) elements of an affirmative defense; 4) damages in civil cases

ii. Relevance = Probativeness – Link btw Proof and Proposition

· Probative: Contributes to proving or disproving a material issue (ie fact of consequence to the determination of the action)

o Ie does it help to prove the fact for which it is offered

· Note under 401: materiality and probativeness combine into relevance

iii. Competence

· Competent if it does not violate an exclusionary rule

iv. Inquiry

· What issue is the evidence offered to prove

· Is that legal issue material to the substantive cause of action or defense in the case?

· Does the evidence tend to prove that issue?

· Does the evidence tend to make the material proposition (issue) more true or untrue then without the evidence?

· Does it violate an exclusionary rule?

o Does the risk of confusion/unfair prejudice/waste of time outweigh helpfulness (403)

v. All evidence is subject to requirements of identification and authentication

· All items of real evidence require a foundation o be presented – establishing that the item is relevant, its identity and that its condition has not materially changed

· All demonstrative evidence requires a foundation to establish that the item depicts relevant information that is or will be proven by other, substantive evidence, that is accurate, and that it will probably aid the trier of fact in understanding the evidence

b. Vocab List for Stuff That Keeps Popping UP

i. Extrinsic Evidence Bar

· Can’t use 2nd witness

· Can’t use documents

ii. Collateral Matter vs. Substantive Law

· Substantive Law: elements of case or other merits

· Collateral matter: issue aside from merits of the case (anything that doesn’t go to jury’s ultimate question)

o Bias is never collateral

RELEVENCE

401: Definition of Relevant Evidence

Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination f the action more probable or less probable than it would be w/o the evidence

402: Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible

All relevant evidence is admissible, except otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.

403: Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

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.

3. Relevance

a. Inquiry

i. Is the evidence relevant?

ii. Does the risk of confusion/unfair prejudice/waste of time outweigh helpfulness

b. There are three rules, they require the judge to weigh what the relevance is and what prejudice may go from their admission

i. Rules 401 and 403 are your fallback objections

4. Rule 401: Relevance

a. Relevancy consists of two elements: Materiality and Probative Value

i. Materiality

· Is the fact sought to be proved an issue under the pleadings and substantive law (ie a fact of consequence)?

o Keep in mind the type of case we’re talking about

§ Ex: bringing in that A stoles B’s car before B killed A might bring down the charge from murder to manslaughter hence material

§ Ex: If a worker’s compensation proceeding, evidence of claimant’s contributory negligence would be immaterial since the worker’s comp statute abrogates it as a defense.

· US v. Johnson: Johnson charged with fraudulent tax statements, but evasion charges were dropped. As evasion charges being dropped they excluded his ability to show that Johnson was actually overpaying his taxes by failing to take permissible deductions. Q: Should D be allowed to admit evidence of overpaying taxes on a false and fraudulent statements case? Court affirms court’s decision to exclude it as irrelevant. Court says overpaying your taxes has no bearing (ie not material) on whether or not you gave fraudulent information to the government in the process of filling out those tax returns (it might be relevant to evasion). D tries to make it material by saying that he blindly relied on his accountants. Court says well if you had given the accountants the correct information then they would have filled them out right. D is only trying to admit this to evoke sympathies from the jury

ii. Probative Value

· Whether the evidence helps to prove the fact for which it is offered?

· The evidence may be relevant/irrelevant depending on which party offers it

o What’s not relevant to the P’s case may be relevant to the D’s case

o Evidence is not an inherent characteristic of any piece of evidence, but exists as relation to the facts

iii. Attack on Relevance

· Not probative of fact B, a fact of consequence

· Probative of Fact C, but fact C not a fact of consequence

b. Limited Relevance

i. Where the issue is relevant to one issue in the case but it is forbidden to be considered for another issue, or has no relationship to another issue, the opposing party may request a limiting instruction.

2. Rule 403: Exclusion of Rel. Evidence Due to Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

a. FRE 403 – although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or n