Soree_Evidence_Spring_2016
Introduction:
Evidence rules are meant to exclude and include information
Two systems:
Adversary system – two opposing sides, each side vigorously presses his case; maybe one side is the truth or both sides are partly right
Party-driven system – the parties control the information as far as what is offered, what is stayed in (judge decides but if there is no objection the info stays in)
Proper inclusion of evidence:
One party offers evidence and the other party doesn’t object or the objection is overruled
If question is asked and witness answers right away, must make a motion to strike immediately
Must give a reason for objection (hearsay, etc.) and can be excluded only for that stated reason, so if hearsay is admissible but would’ve been struck for a different reason, the evidence will go through
Improperly excluded evidence
If one party offers evidence and it is overruled, the party must make an offer of proof right away
Will have to convince judge that the evidence should be admitted
These are discretionary calls abuse of discretion standard
If harmless error harmless error doctrine
FRE Rule 104(a) – the judge has discretion to decide whether evidence is admissible
The rules distrust the jury
Types of evidence
Testimonial evidence
Testimony of witnesses from the stand
Will want to know if the witness is independent, biased, credible, honest, how well they can see
Documents
Any type of writing or recording of information
Must be authenticated
Real evidence
Physical evidence that a party claims played a direct role in the controversy
Want to know how it was obtained, if tempered, etc.
Demonstrative evidence
Re-creation or imitation of some aspects of the controversy
Diagram of car accident that took place, will want to know if it is accurate
Judicial notice
If is the fact that is indisputable true, the trial judge take judicial notice of that fact
The fact must be generally known or accurately and readily determined by consulting an unimpeachable source
Circumstantial evidence
Any evidence that requires the jury to make an inference connecting the evidence with a dispute fact
The FRE do not use this phrase, but lawyers and judges do
Substitutes for evidence
Stipulations or judicial notice
Stipulations are agreements between the parties on a fact; to introduce it as evidence both parties must agree to its exact language
Why do we have rules of evidence?
Because we don’t trust that the jury will be able to recognize the difference between good and bad evidence
Want to promote efficiency
Tanner v. US (1987)
This case stands for the system’s unwillingness to look past the jury’s verdict to expose whatever flaws in reasoning or understanding might lie behind the curtain of the deliberation room
General Rule: Universal and firmly established common law rule in the US flatly prohibited the admission of juror testimony to impeach a jury verdict
Exception: only recognized in situations where there was extraneous influence
FRE Rule 606(b)
The rule only prohibits jurors from testifying regarding deliberation behavior after the verdict
They took the drugs before the deliberation
Renders jurors incompetent to testify only as to three subjects:
1. Any matter or statement occurring during deliberation
2. The effect of anything upon the mind or emotions of any juror as it relates to his or her assent to or dissent from the verdict, and
3. The mental processes of the juror in connection with his assent to or dissent from the verdict
Warger v. Shauers (2014)
Issue: The question presented in this case is whether Rule 606(b) precludes a party seeking a new trial from using one juror’s affidavit of what another juror said in deliberations to demonstrate the other juror’s dishonesty during voir dire.
Holding: Yes. We hold that Rule 606(b) applies to juror testimony during a proceeding in which a party seeks to secure a new trial on the ground that a juror lied during voir dire. In doing so, we simply accord Rule 606(b)’s terms their plain meaning. The Rule, after all, applies “during an inquiry into the validity of a verdict.” Rule 606(b)(1).
Chapter 1 General Principles of Relevance
Probativeness and materiality
FRE Rule 402 – evidence must be relevant
If evidence is relevant, then must look if other rule prohibits it or will allow it anyway
Relevant evidence: evidence having any tendency to make the existence of fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
FRE Rule 401 – any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence (probativeness) and the fact is of consequence in determining the action (materiality)
Pr
does not apply is in cases of 609(a)(2)
Photos and other inflammatory evidence
State v. Bocharski (2001)
Trailer park stabbing case
Pictures of dead bodies are always relevant
Relevant pictures may be admitted, but not all relevant pictures should be admitted
Particularly gruesome pictures that do not add to the case can be excluded if they are more prejudicial than probative
There was no question of how she died, but this does not make the pictures irrelevant
Holding (on appellate review): No harm, no foul. Exhibits 46 and 47 should not have been admitted but it did not contribute to or affect the jury’s verdict
Concurrence: there is no need to be paternalistic with the jurors
Commonwealth v. Serge (2006)
Husband shot his wife. The husband claimed he was acting in self-defense, but in reviewing the evidence it seemed he staged the scene and moved the body and strategically placed a knife close to her body.
The Commonwealth introduced a CGA into evidence. The CGA demonstrated the Commonwealth’s argument that defendant tampered with the crime scene to stage a self-defense setting by showing the position of the victim and defendant, and the sequence, path, trajectory, and impact sites of bullets.
The state supreme court held that a CGA was potentially admissible as demonstrative evidence, as long as the animation was properly authenticated, it was relevant, and its probative value outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion, as required by Pa. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403, and 901. The state supreme court held that the Commonwealth satisfied all of the foundational requirements for admitting the CGA as demonstrative evidence. Furthermore, the CGA was relevant evidence that enabled the Commonwealth experts to illustrate their opinions and educate the jury on the forensic and physical data. The alleged prejudicial effect of the CGA (also the monetary disparity) did not outweigh its relevance. Therefore, the admission of this evidence was proper.
