Evidence Outline

EVIDENCE OUTLINE
Prof. Niehoff Fall ‘07
 
 
 
I.                   INTRODUCTION
a.       Def: Evidence is the material from which inferences may be drawn as the basis for proof of the truth or falsity of a fact in dispute.
                                                               i.      2 issues
1.      What should be admitted at trial?
a.       Concern about unfair prejudice (e.g., stereotypes, evidence that move the jury by emotion)
b.      Concern about confusion (e.g., undue reliance on “scientific” evidence)
c.       Restrict repetitive, pointless evidence
d.      Bar evidence obtained illegally
e.       Protect the privacy of certain communications (e.g. attorney-client privilege, marital privilege)
2.      What use can properly be made of materials admitted?
b.      3 principles
                                                               i.      Relevance: if the item of evidence tends to prove or disprove any proposition
                                                             ii.      Reliability: quality of the info, both qualitative and quantitative
                                                            iii.      Privileges: the evidence may be relevant and reliable, but we’re going to keep it out due to a higher interest based on social policy and judgments that calls for its exclusion
c.       Generally, the starting approach in the evidence rules is just to let it in.
II.                Faith in juries’ fact-finding powers
a.       Not uniform. E.g., HIGH when we ask them to determine whether a witness is telling the truth. LOW when it comes to expert witnesses and hearing evidence of D’s past behavior; seeing autopsy photos, etc.
b.      But once the jury renders its verdict, blind faith sets in. 
                                                               i.      No review of jurors’ skill and fairness, thus the importance of the rules. Aids the jury’s legitimacy. This is a contradiction: enormous faith in jury verdicts, yet we have a system of evidence rules that evinces mistrust of jury’s ability to tell good evidence from bad. Since no control at back end, must have quality control at the front end
c.       Rule 606(b): Competency of Juror as Witness; Inquiry into validity of verdict or indictment
                                                               i.      Juror can’t testify as to any matter/statement occurring during course of the jury’s deliberations or on any other juror’s mind or emotions influencingh