Evidence Outline

Evidence Outline – Wellborn
 
 
History
I.                    Congress
a.      House was more liberal – concerned about effects the rules would have on rights of the D
                                                               i.      thought rules were too friendly to prosecution
b.      Senate was more conservative
II.                 Common Law was more restrictive than the rules
a.      Reform meant more admissibility
b.      Liberals were against the change b/c wanted to protect D’s rights
c.      Conservatives were in favor of change
III.               FRE – enacted as a statute in 1975
a.      40 states and jurisdictions have adopted it
b.      codification was appealing to smaller states who did not have as much CL
c.      CA already had a code and kept theirs
d.      TX had to go through the codification process twice – once for civil and once for criminal
                                                               i.      1983 – TX rules of Civil Evidence (Sharlot & Wellborn helped)
                                                             ii.      1986 – TX rules of Criminal Evidence
                                                            iii.      1998 – Two sets of rules merged
 
Relevance – Federal Rules 401 – 403
I.                    Relevance has two ingredients – 401 definition
a.      Is this a fact of consequence? (Question of materiality)
                                                               i.      Substantive law determines what a material fact is – look at penal code or pleadings
1.      if intent is part of the offense, then evidence showing motive is admissible
b.      Is the evidence probative of the proposition it is offered to prove? 
                                                               i.      Does it make the proposition more or less likely with the evidence than without the evidence?
1.      does it limit the possible number of perps? State v. Nicholas
2.      Demonstration showing the effects of injury to prove damages
3.      view of scene by trier is usually excluded
                                                             ii.      Flight or admissions by conduct
1.      may be admitted as evidence of a guilty mind so long as flight there is support that this was not normal behavior
                                                            iii.      Previous similar incidents
1.      may be used in negligence or products liability case to show existence of dangerous defect, causation, or notice to D
a.       Simon v. Kennebunkport – other people had fallen down on sidewalk; has to be similar conditions
                                                                                                                                       i.      But even if dissimilar, accident may be brought up to impeach witness’ assertions of safety
2.      Be careful of 403 considerations, like unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time
a.       Jury may want to punish this time just b/c they know it happened before
b.      Requirement may be less strict when trying to prove notice
                                                                                                                                       i.      Can only bring up notice if there has been sufficient time to remedy
                                                           iv.      Tests or demonstrations
1.      Fusco v. General Motors – driving accident
a.       Have to show that other accidents occurred under substantially similar conditions
                                                                                                                                       i.      unless it is just t