Evidence Outline

 
Evidence
Malavet
Fall 2015
 
 
I. Preliminary Overview
A.    FRE Applicable
1. civil proceedings
2. criminal proceedings
3. contempt proceedings
4. habeus corpus proceedings
B.     Motion in limine
1. a motion seeking a court ruling to exclude anticipated evidence
2. obtain an advance ruling so that the jurors are not exposed to potentially inadmissible evidence
C.     Scope of direct
1. On cross-examination, the questioning is limited to the matters explored in direct examination.
D.    Offer of proof
1. If the trial judge sustains an objection, the proponent of the evidence must normally make an “offer of proof” if he wishes to be able to contend on appeal that that there was an error.
2. The offer of proof must contain a description of evidence being proposed and an explanation of how that evidence relates to the case. 
 
II. Relevance
A.    All relevant evidence is admitted
1. FRE 401—Relevant evidence means
a. evidence having any tendency
b. to make the existence of any fact that is
c. of consequence to the determination of the action
d. more probable or less probable
e. than it would be without the evidence.
                        2. probative value
a.       the evidence must make the factual proposition more or less likely than it would be without the evidence.
b.      P is hit by D.  P offers evidence via W that D was driving 55 mph.  There is a link between W’s testimony and the proposition that D was driving 55 mph.  W’s testimony makes it more likely that D was driving 55 mph than if W did not testify.
3. materiality
a.       Assume the speed limit at the site of the accident was 35mph.  This satisfies materiality.  Evidence that D was speeding affects a fundamental substantive law proposition—whether D was negligent.
b.      there must be a link between the factual proposition that the evidence tends to establish and substantive law.
c.       above, there is a link between D speeding 55 mph (factual proposition) and negligence.
4. The prosecution is entitled to prove its case free from D’s option to stipulate.  The fact need not be in dispute. 
a.       Old Chief v. US—Old Chief was charged with being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm.  Old Chief wanted to stipulate to the felony aspect, but US wanted to introduce evidence.  Held for US even though evidence of crime would not make it more likely that Old Chief committed a crime because Old Chief stipulated to it.
5. evidential hypothesis (offering party’s explanation why his proof is relecant)
a.       All humans are mortal
b.      Socrates is human
c.       Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
6. example: Two cars were involved in a head on collision on an open road and no one was watching.  W testifies that one of the cars passed him 30 miles west from the accident going about 80 mph.
a.       evidential hypothesis: People who speed at one point in time may speed later.
b.      W’s testimony makes the factual proposition that one car was speeding more likely than it would have been without the evidence.  The evidence has probative value (see hypothesis) and the evidence relates to the law of negligence making it material.
7. direct evidence
a.       evidence that resolves a matter in issue
b.      W testifies that she saw D strangling P.
8. circumstantial evidence
a.       evidence which does not resolve the matter at issue but needs additional reasoning.
b.      W testifies that she saw D running from the scene of the crime where P was found strangled.  The inference is that people who run from the scene of the crime may be guilty.
c.       The more steps there are in the chain of inferences, the less probative value exists. 
9. Example: D is charged with murdering V.  D claims self defense and tries to prove that he has reason to fear V by testifying that he had been told that V had seriously injured or killed an old man.  The prosecution offers the testimony of a doctor that said the old man died of natural causes.  D objects on relevance grounds.  Held for prosecution.  The doctor’s testimony has the tendency to make D’s claim of what he heard less likely to be true than without the testimony.
B.     Prejudice
1. Rule 403
a. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED by the danger of
i.                    unfair prejudice
ii.                  confusion of the issues
iii.                misleading the jury
iv.                considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence
2. State v. Chapple—At issue in a criminal case was whether Dee was the killer.  Prosecution introduced photos showing the bloody death of the victim.  Held that this was prejudice.  The probative value was relatively low because no one was disputing the manner in which the victim died.  This was not the issue.  The prejudice was high because jury may convict Dee on the basis of the bloody photos. (If the issue in the case was the manner of death, or intent of the killer, then ok to introduce photos because probative value would be high.)
3. Old Chief v. US—Old Chief was charged with convicted felon in possession of a firearm.  Tried to stipulate felony, but prosecution introduced evidence of felony.  Held prejudice.  Probative value is low because the issue in the case was not whether Old Chief committed a felony.  He stipulated to the felony.  Prejudice is high because the jury could convict on the basis of the past felony and not on the evidence at hand. 
4. Example: Defendant in a case was charged with robbery and car theft.  Defendant admitted to the robbery and did not want evidence of the robbery introduced in the prosecution for the car theft.
a.       Relevance—Evidence of the robbery is relevant because people who commit robberies need a getaway vehicle.  The evidence of the robbery tends to establish why the defendant wanted to steal the car.
b.      Prejudice—The probative value is relatively high because the evidence gives a motive for the robbery.  There is some prejudice because the jury could convict the defendant on the basis of the robbery.
5. Example: Defendant is on trial for murdering his wife.  Defendant claims it was an accident.  Prosecution seeks to introduce testimony that wife went to a battered women’s shelter 2 years ago.
a.       Relevant—People who go to a battered women’s shelter may have been battered.  The person who battered them once could kill them later.  The testimony tends to establish the factual proposition that the woman