Evidence Outline

EVIDENCE McGINNISS FALL 2013 OUTLINE
Federal Rules of Evidence = signed into law in 1975 pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act of 1934 to dictate how & when facts may be proved or disproved at trial
·         Codified many parts of the common law interpretation of evidence law.
·         Transmitted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973, but Congress declared the rules would not take effect unless and until the rules were expressly approved by Congress due to controversies of “executive privileges in the wake of Watergate.
1.       [duty of the lawyer to object in order to enforce evidence rules. Lawyers have discretion in determining what evidence to submit] 2.      Relevance rule [all relevant evidence is admissible, unless otherwise excluded]  
FRE 101: govern proceedings in United States [federal] courts, with exception under rule 1101
FRE 1101(d): rules do not apply to (1) determination preliminary questions of fact, (2) grand jury proceedings, and (3) non-typical evidentiary proceedings
FRE 102:  These rules shall be construed to secure fairness in administration, elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay, and promotion of growth and development of the law of evidence to the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined.
Role of the Trial Judge
Evidence law grants the trial judge both extensive authority and extensive discretion
United States v. Walton (7th Cir. 2000): We afford great deference to the trial court’s determination of the admissibility of evidence because of the trial judge’s first-hand exposure to the witnesses and the evidence as a whole, and because of the judge’s familiarity with the case and ability to gauge the impact of the evidence in the context of the entire proceeding.
FRE 103 Rulings on Evidence: Only if a substantial right of a party is affect and the nature of the error was called to the attention of the judge can a ruling on evidence be overturned [reversible error].  However, when a party does not object, this rule does not take away the ability of a higher court to overrule if there is “plain error” affecting the substantial rights of a party.
Bandera v. City of Quincy (1st Cir. 2003): A woman who was identified as a witness for Bandera described her own experiences with the police and then was later asked about her personal opinion about Bandera’s situation. The defense objected multiple times, but did not say what they were objecting to. Although the woman’s testimony was not appropriate, the fact that the defense did not say what they were objecting to and did not do it in a timely manner they lost the ability to object to it later.
FRE 104 Preliminary Questions:
(a) The court determines questions concerning (1) qualification to be a witness, (2) the existence of privileged, and (3) admissibility of evidence.
(b) Courts should admit evidence which is conditionally subject to the introduction of a fact in order to establish the relevancy of that evidence.
** When determines preliminary questions, the judge is not bound by the federal rules of evidence.
 
Doctrine of Completeness
FRE 106 Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements
When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part of any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.
Rule Based on Two Considerations
1.      The misleading impression created by taking matters out of context
2.      Future attempts to repair the misleading impression is inadequate when delayed to a point later in the trial
** Rule does not hamper right of adversary to develop the matter on cross-examination or as part of his own case.
** The rule is limited to writings and recorded statements and does NOT apply to conversations.
Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey (1988): A spouse of a deceased naval personnel brought suit for liability of a plane crash.  The Defendant’s entered into evidence part of a report detailing the crash that initially appeared to benefit their case.  However, the Plaintiff moved for, and the Court agreed per Rule 106, that the entire report needs to be admitted in order to fully understand it.  (If you would have read the whole report you would have discovered that it actually was more so in favor of the spouse’s contentions.)
** The rest of the document by Rainey is not hearsay because it is being offered to put the rest of the comments in context, and not for proving the truth — basically, the rest of the statement will not be hearsay, even if it contains out-of-court statements because it is being used to put the rest of the statement in context [under this circumstance, there will more than likely be a limiting instruction.] Relevance
** All relevant evidence is admissible, expect as excluded by the FRE.
** Evidence is RELEVANT if it is rationally probative in any way and irrelevant if it is not
** The relevance or irrelevance of a piece of evidence is determined by logic and experience, not be legal rules.
** Relevance does not equal sufficiency; “a brick is not a wall.”
FRE 401 Definition of “Relevant Evidence”
Relevant evidence = 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.
·         Consider Materiality: Whether the evidence offered relates to an issue in the case
·         Consider Probative Value: Whether evidence logical tends to prove or disprove the matter for which it is offered.
·         When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court shall admit it upon, or subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition.
 
FRE 402: Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible. 
All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution, 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.
·         Completely irrelevant evidence is ALWAYS inadmissible. 
·         When evidence is relevant to many issues, it may be admissible to one issue but not to another issues because of another rule.  Limiting jury instruction will guide jury as to which issue evidence is admissible.
Knapp v. State (Ind. 1907): Defendant claimed self-defense because he feared the police would beat him, as he heard the police officer had done.  Testimony from a physician that a police officer did not beat an old man to death made it LESS PROBABLE the defendant heard a rumor the police officer has done so, thus the evidence was relevant and admissible.
U.S. v. Dominguez (1st Cir. 1990):  A customs officer was found guilty of kidnapping, robbing, and murdering a man when he attempted to carry $700k into the border. The prosecution bought into evidence the fact that the defendant tried to have the barrel replaced on the gun he owned. The defense objected to this evidence because the fact he had a gun was irrelevant because he had to have a gun for his employment. The court found that the evidence should be allowed because the fact that he had a gun made it MORE PROBABLE that he would shoot someone. The other logical point that he would have tried to replace the barrel makes guilt more probable than not and this evidence should be admissible.
State v. Larson (Mont. 1992): A man was found guilty of negligent endangerment when he was drunk on a horse that ended up rearing and causing a girl also on the horse to get crushed. The prosecution brought evidence in stating that the defendant was beyond the legal limit to drive a vehicle. The defense objected, stating he was not operating a vehicle and the evidence was not relevant. The court allowed the evidence to be entered because there is a logical connection between his inability to drive a car and his inability to ride a horse because of alcohol.
FRE 403:  Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time.
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded 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.
** Burden is on the party objecting to show “unfair prejudice outweighs the probative value.”
United States v. Noriega (11th Cir. 1997): During the case Noriega wanted to bring in evidence that he did important work for the U.S. for which the U.S. paid him a lot of money for, which he thought would show his wealth came from the U.S. and not from drug trafficking. The court ruled, and the higher court affirmed, that bringing in this evidence would confuse the jury under rule 403 because it would muddy up the issues and take the jury’s attention off the real issue in the case as to whether he trafficked drugs.
United States v. Flitcraft (5th Cir. 1986): Flitcraft wanted to offer as evidence of actual articles and documents which convinced him his wages were not income, but the trial court did not allow it, but Flitcraft was allowed to testify about what he read.  The introduction of the cases and documents relied on would have been cumulative because Flitcraft testified to the documents he relied on and their contents.  Also, there would have been little probative value and it presented a danger of confusing the jury by suggesting the law was unsettled.
Abernathy v. Superior Hardwoods, Inc. (7th Cir. 1983): A trial court allowed tape of the recreation an accident (actually more so showing how a forklift routinely unloads logs) to be shown to the jury, but with the soundtrack turned off. Ruled recording of sound did not meet “minimum standards of reliability,” and it created a risk of “misleading the jury,” coupled with concerns about “undue delay” and “waste of time” because the recording was done by an amateur and the recording was not conducted where Abernathy was standing.
“A district judge is not required to encumber a trial with evidence of slight probative value merely because effective cross-examination might expose its weakness”
United States v. McRae (5th Cir. 1979): McRae shot his wife in the head at a close range with a rifle.  He admitted that he did it, but argued that it was an accident.  The prosecution admitting pictures of his wife after she had been shot that were quite graphic and McRae argues that the admission of these photos was prejudicial.  The photos were used to establish the position of the rifle when it was fired and other elements of the crime.  The trial court allowed the evidence, and the appellate court affirmed because the evidence was not UNFAIRLY prejudicial.
Relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial; but it only UNFAIR prejudice, SUBSTANTIALLY outweighs probative value, which permits exclusion of relevant matter under F.R.E. 403.
 
Conditional relevancy = probative value depends not only upon satisfying the basic requirement of relevancy as described above but also upon the existence of some