Evidence Outline

RELEVANCY
Relevancy
·         Rule 401: Definition of Relevant Evidence
o   Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
·         RULE 402: RELEVANT EVIDENCE GENERALLY ADMISSIBLE; IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE
o   All relevant evidence is admissible, except as 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.
·         Must be Offered to Prove a Fact of Consequence
o   The proposition of fact must be of consequence (material) to the case
§ The evidence matters to the legal resolution of the dispute
o   Therefore, it must be connected to an element of the claims or defenses
·         Must Make a Fact of Consequence More or Less Probable
o   Probability is determined from knowledge and experience
o   Relevancy requires reasonable generalizations
§ Test: whether a reasonable person might believe the probability of the truth of the consequential fact to be different if that person knew of the offered evidence
o   FRE 401’s Minimal Standard of “Any Tendency”
§ Relevant evidence: “any tendency to make the existence of any fact…of consequence…more or less probable
§ Minimalist standard favoring admission
Ÿ Judge should find evidence to be relevant if he believes there is any probability that the relevant connection exists
o  
EF
FOC/POF
EE
Logical relevancy
Requirement of materiality
 
 
 
 
 
§ If evidence fails either one of these links, it is not relevant
·         Intermediate inferences:
o   Often for an evidentiary fact to support an FOC requires several intermediate inferences
o   The validity of each inference depends on the underlying generalization (major premise)
o   The validity of the generalization is evaluated by the judge asking whether the typical juror would be able to conclude that the premise was reasonable
§ If he believe they will then it comes in
§ If he doesn’t believe they would he might ask for more evidence to support the major premise
·         Four Crucial Steps for Determining Relevancy
o   What is the evidence?
o   To what proposition is the evidence directed?
o   Does the evidence tend to prove that proposition of fact?
§ Does evidence make the proposition more or less probable?
o   Is that proposition of consequence “of consequence” to the lawsuit?
 
·         Some evidence may come in as background evidence/scene of the crime evidence (the total picture helps the jury make sense of the whole matter)
·         Relevance does not equal Sufficiency to send case to a jury
o   In a criminal case, the sufficiency of the evidence test is whether a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime charged
o   Admissibility and sufficiency have nothing to do with each other
§ Sufficiency: whether all of the evidence presented by one side would be sufficient for the jury to find that the accused committed the crime charged
§ Admissibility: focuses on only ONE piece of evidence
·         Case: Knapp v. State
o   i. D charged with killing marshal. D claims self-defense, stating that he had heard that the marshal had clubbed and seriously injured an old man who subsequently died, but that he could not remember where he heard that information. State brought in testimony of a physician that the old man died of senility and alcoholism and there were no bruises or other marks on his body. D argued on appeal that the physician’s testimony should not have been admitted because it was not relevant to the question of whether D had heard the story. Court said the testimony WAS RELEVANT. 
§ Chain of reasoning: EF (testimony of physician)àIF1 (physician telling truth—the old man was not beaten)àIF2 (D did not hear that old man was beaten)àFOC (D not fearful of the marshal)àEE (D did not act in self-defense)
Ÿ The connection between IF1 and IF2 was the issue here. Underlying generalization is that people have an impulse to tell the truth. Makes it less likely that D heard that the old man was beaten. This satisfies any tendency test because the testimony (EF) tends to make less probable D’s claim that he was fearful and therefore acted in self defense. 
 
·         Probative Value and FRE 403
1. FRE 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 issue, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
 
BALANCING TEST
·         Recognizes the fact that evidence can have positive value and negative value à evidence is only admissible if the negative value does not “substantially outweigh” the positive value. 
o   The word substantially implies that the negative balance can outweigh it, just not too much
Overall theme is a preference for admission
a. The preference is for the admission of evidence; must be excluded only if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
 
2. Probative Value: Persuasive effect that the evidence will likely have on the jury’s thinking about the fact of consequence
a. Measures:
                                i. Strength of the underlying inferences
                                ii. Certitude- Certainty of the starting point (not witness’s credibility)
                                iii. Need (availability of other means of proof)
3. Rule 403 Dangers: Danger