NIEHOFF EVIDENCE OUTLINE
I. Introduction to Evidence
a. Evidence is about the limits we place on what juries here – Limits are imposed b/c:
i. trials must end: efficiency
ii. Bill of Rights
iii. letting certain things in will adversely affect behavior outside of courtroom: subsequent remedial matters (chill people from remedying these things), privilege: protection of socially important relationships, overvaluing or undervaluing certain evidence
iv. at minimum: create appearance of fairness
b. 4 categories of rules:
i. Relevance: unfair prejudice, etc
ii. Reliability: evidence may be relevant (sufficiently connected to matter at hand) – but question of reliability
iii. Privilege: would concede that its relevant/reliable – but some relationship that we want to protect
iv. Everything else: address issues of evidence that are so basic that they are not argued over or so arcane…
c. Clip from My Brothers Keeper:
i. be aware of tension that exists b/n the way that we think on normal daily basis about what we know and what the rules of evidence say about what we know
II. Post Verdict Testimony by Jurors
a. Tanner v United States (p 7): Juror testimony concerning drug and alcohol abuse during deliberations inadmissible in federal courts
i. R. 606(b): Juror testimony (or affidavits) is admissible only to show any outside influences improperly brought to bear on any member of the jury (e.g. threats) ot “extraneous personal information improperly brought to the jury’s attention” (e.g. news releases)
ii. CL tradition formed R. 606 – flat prohibition against juror testimony to impeach verdict, with above exceptions
1. advisory cmt note: mental operations and emotional reactions of jurors in arriving at given result would pace every verdict at mercy of jurors and invite tampering and harassment.s
2. juror may not disclose irregularities which occur in the jury room – but allows his testimony as to irregularities occurring outside
3. SC used legislative history to illuminate the meaning of the text
iii. Why is there external/internal distinction?
1. interest in finality of litigation
2. freedom of deliberation – don’t chill process
3. protect jurors from harassment
4. don’t undermine public confidence in the system
5. SC
Wrong
No impact à appellate court affirms “harmless error doctrine”
Right
Wrong (the reason that you reach the wrong result may not the evidentiary question, so with respect to the evidentiary question, the appellate might still affirm)
Wrong
Wrong à reversal
*appellate court has wide discretion within these possibilities.
*4/5 chance of affirmation.
*takeaway: get the trial court to rule your way…that’s far and away the most important place to win. Preserving issues for appeal is valuable, but doesn’t do you a lot of good with the low standard of review.
a. 2 concepts:
Is the evidence material?
