Evidence Outline

Evidence

Gugliuzza

Fall 2011

1. What evidence is RELEVANT?

Is the evidence RELEVANT?

Rule 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 of the action more probably or less probably than it would have been without the evidence.

· The evidence must advance the case in some way

Extraordinarily liberal standard

Stating the obvious à relevant evidence is admissible; irrelevant evidence is not

Rule 402: Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible, Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible

A. All relevant evidence is admissible, unless otherwise provided by:

1. The U.S. Constitution OR

2. An Act of Congress OR

3. The FRE OR

4. Other rules prescribed by the U.S. Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority.

B. Evidence which is not relevant is inadmissible.

2. Even if RELEVANT should the evidence be kept out on grounds that it is prejudicial, confusing, cumulative, or a waste of time?

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

Relevant evidence may be excluded if its “probative” value is substantially outweighed by either

1. The danger of:

a. unfair prejudice OR

b. confusion of the issues OR

c. misleading the jury

OR 2. Consideration of:

a. Undue delay OR

b. Waste of time OR

c. Needless presentation of cumulative evidence

Unfairly prejudicial defined à “appeals to the jury’s sympathies, arouses its sense of horror, prevokes its instinct to punish, “or otherwise,” may cause a jury to base its decision no something other than the established propositions of the case.” Carter v. Hewitt.

· Chain of Relevancy – the longer the chain the lower the probative value

· Prejudicial – all evidence is prejudicial. The focus is on whether it is unfairly prejudicial.

· Stipulating to Facts – Other than a blanket admission or non-admission, court has the discretion of allowing stipulation to facts. United States v. Jackson.

· The Judge’s Role and Rule 403: The judge’s job is to balance the probative value with other issues BUT the judge does not decide the credibility that is for the jury to decide. Ballou v. Henri.

· Substantive law often defines what is and is not relevant.

3. Types of Evidence

**Direct** **Circumstantial**

A. Character Evidence

Rule 404 – Character Evidence Not Admissible to Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes

(a) Character Evidence Generally

1. “Character Evidence” is evidence of a person’s character or character trait.

2. Admissibility:

a. Character evidence is NOT ADMISSIBLE to prove that a person acted in keeping with that character

b. EXCEPTIONS:

1. Character of Accused, if:

a. The evidence is offered by the accused and is pertinent.

OR b. The evidence is offered by the prosecution to rebut character evidence offered by the accused

OR c. The evidence is offered by the prosecution to show the character trait of the accused, where the accused offers the character trait of the alleged victim. [Under 404(a)(2)].

2. Character of the Alleged Victim if:

a. The evidence is offered by the accused and is pertinent.

OR b. The evidence is offered by the prosecution to rebut character evidence offered by the accused

OR c. Homicide Cases – If the evidence is:

i. Offered by the prosecution

AND ii. Of the peacefulness of the alleged victim of a homicide

AND iii. Used to rebut evidence that the alleged victim was the aggressor

3. Character of witness under 607-609.

(b) Admissibility of Evidence of Other Crimes, Wrongdoing

1. Evidence of a person’s other crimes, wrongs, or acts is NOT admissible to prove that the person acted in keeping with that character

2. EXCEPTIONS:

a. Such evidence may be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of:

1. Motive

2. Opportunity

3. Intent

4. Preparation

5. Plan

6. Knowledge

7. Identity

8. Absence of mistake or accident

b. Requirement – (in a criminal case): Upon request of the accused, the Prosecution must provide reasonable notice of the general nature of the evidence, either

i. before trial

OR ii. During trial, if the court excuses pretrial notice on show of good cause

Rule 404(b): other acts to prove character to prove conduct are inadmissible

– exceptions: you can introduce other acts to prove MIMIKCOP to prove conduct

(Motive, Intent, Mistake/accident, Identity, Knowledge, Common plan or scheme, Opportunity, Preparation)–this is a non-exclusive list–exceptions are very broad & can often swallow up the rule–lines drawn by exceptions are vague & thus cases fall on either side of the line

– motive: a prior act provides reason why D committed charged crime

– ex. charge of tax evasion–prior act: D dealing drugs (reason why no records kept)

– intent: a prior act proves current intent

– ex. possession w/ intent to sell–prior bad act: D sold drugs before

– this is a very broad exception

– mistake/accident: prior act rebuts claim of mistake or accident

– ex. charge of child abuse–prior act: child had suffered unusual number of previous injuries

– identity: prior act proves modus operandi also used in charged crime

– ex. charge is robbery–prior act: robberies w/ similar m.o.

– knowledge: prior act shows knowledge necessary for