Evidence Outline

Evidence Outline
 
Relevancy
 
v      FRE 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. 
v      In order to be relevant, evidence must
o        Have probative relationship- evidence must make the factual proposition more or less likely than it would be without the evidence.
o        Material- must be link between the factual proposition which the evidence tends to establish and the substantive law
v      FRE 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.
o        Knapp v. State
§         ∆ charged with murder and claims that killed victim in self defense and had heard a story that victim had killed an old man. Prosecution intends to introduce evidence that old man died of natural causes. Is this evidence relevant. Held relevant. An item is relevant when it tends to prove or disprove, however slightly, an issue at trial. Here the fact that old man died a natural death makes it less likely that ∆ heard the story. 
o        Sherrod v. Berry
§         Officer shot and killed a robbery suspect because reasonable believed that reaching for his gun. Πs wanted to present evidence that victim was not armed. Held irrelevant. When the officer had reasonable belief that victim was reaching for the gun, the absence of the gun is irrelevant. 
v      4 Part Test for Relevance
o        what fact am I trying to prove with this piece of evidence?
o        Is the fact that I am trying to prove a fact of consequence to this case?
o        Does the evidence help establish that fact?
o        What is the probative value of the evidence vs. risks of unfair prejudict.
v      FRE 403
o        Even if evidence is relevant, the judge can still exclude it 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.
o        Old Chief v. US
§         D was charged with possession of weapon while having prior felony. D offers to stipulate that has prior felony but judge allows the prosecution to read the prior jury verdict from which new jury finds that D was convicted with assault. Held that probative value of the reading and stipulation same but the prejudicial effect of the reading very great. So trial judge erred.
§         Ballou v. Henri Studios
·         Π sued for wrongful death of her husband. ∆ tried to introduce into evidence blood test showing that husband was highly intoxicated when died. Π presented testimony of nurse who said husband not drunk. Trial judge excluded the blood test because though was not reliable. Held, it is not the function of the trial judge to see whether evidence reliable or not. Under 403, the question for the judge is whether, if believed by the jury, the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. It is up to the jury to determine the credibility and reliability of evidence.
 
Character Evidence
 
v      FRE 405
o        Reputation or Opinion
§         In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct.
o        Specific instances of conduct
§         In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an esse