Evidence Outline

 
Evidence Shapiro Spring 2017
 
*Note: On the final exam, the Federal Rules of Evidence will be made available. You DO NOT need to memorize them.
 
INTRODUCTION – THE JURY
 
RULE 606(b): The jury is not allowed to testify about deliberations, the effect of anything on jurors’ votes, or the jurors’ mental processes
Some exceptions:
extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to jury’s attention (e.g. bribery, news, publicity);
an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror; or
a mistake was made in entering the verdict on the verdict form
internal influences (within one’s mind) – racism
Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado (2017) – courts must make an exception to the usual rule that jury deliberations are secret when evidence emerges that those discussions were marred by racial or ethnic bias.
Racial prejudice is the one type of internal influence forbidden. Usually, internal influences are off limits to judicial review.
Warger v. Shauers (2014) – the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that jurors may not testify about what went on during deliberations, even to expose dishonesty during jury selection.
But Justice Sotomayor, writing for the court, suggested that cases involving racial bias might require a different result. “There may be cases of juror bias so extreme that, almost by definition, the jury trial right has been abridged,” she wrote. “If and when such a case arises, the court can consider whether the usual safeguards are or are not sufficient to protect the integrity of the process.”
 
TANNER v. UNITED STATES:
Rule: Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.) Rule 606(b), prohibits the impeachment of a verdict with a juror’s testimony except where there is question as to whether any outside influence was brought to bear on any juror.
HOLDING/RULE: Rule 606(b), prohibits the impeachment of a verdict with a juror’s testimony except where there is question as to whether any outside influence was brought to bear on any juror
This case shows that jury verdicts are pretty much final.
Policy: Lack of finality, harassment of jurors, private deliberation compromised, community trust compromised. There were good reasons to ignore “irresponsible or improper juror behavior” if it was based on jurors’ accounts of what had gone on in the jury room. After-the-fact challenges based on jurors’ testimony, she wrote, would make it less likely that jurors would speak candidly during deliberations. Allowing such challenges would encourage lawyers to harass former jurors, she said, and undermine the finality of verdicts.
 
PART I: RELEVANCE
 
I. THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF RELEVANCE
 
Relevance – “that which makes something evident or clear”
 
 
 
 
 
PROBATIVENESS AND MATERIALITY: Rules 401-403
 
RULE 401
Evidence is RELEVANT if:
it has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
the fact is of consequence in determining the action (materiality)
Rule 401 is “liberal” on admitting evidence
To be probative, evidence need not prove anything conclusively, but must merely have some tendency to make a fact more or less probable
Tends to prove to disprove a fact – more likely than not that person did such act
Materiality – must relate to thing or issue in the courtroom
Relevance = Probative (proving something, tendency to prove a fact at issue) + Materiality (having real importance or great consequences to the current case)
 
RULE 402
Relevant evidence is admissible UNLESS any of the following provides otherwise:
the Constitution;
a federal statute;
the FRE; or
other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court
Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible
 
UNITED STATES v. JAMES
Rule: Where a Defendant raises self-defense as a defense to a charge of manslaughter, it is improper under the Federal Rules of Evidence to exclude extrinsic evidence of the decedent’s violent nature that would have corroborated the Defendant’s testimony. This evidence is material.
HOLDING/RULE: Yes, Where a Defendant raises self-defense as a defense to a charge of manslaughter, it is improper under the Federal Rules of Evidence to exclude extrinsic evidence of the decedent’s violent nature that would have corroborated the Defendant’s testimony
Jury may have originally thought James was making up Ogden’s stories of past behavior, but the documents corroborate it and give her credibility
Since defendant’s case rested on this point, the evidence is admissible
 
CONDITIONAL RELEVANCE: 104(b)
 
RULE 104(b): When relevance of evidence depends on a fact, proponent must prove the fact. Court may admit evidence on condition that proof be introduced later. (Conditional Relevance)
Ex: Man finds a woman stabbed to death next to a coffee table in her apartment. On the table is a glass of wine. In the kitchen is a knife. Individually, the items are not relevant, BUT if CSI testifies that the fingerprints match the suspect’s, then it IS RELEVANT. The condition makes it relevant.
Question becomes how large is the missing link and whether it’s a break a reasonable jury can find filled by other conditions
Facts can be presented in any order lawyer wants to bring into evidence
Example: There is no concrete evidence that Cox knew about the hearing, but all 104(b) asks is, is there enough evidence where the jury could conclude that the conversation happened?
 
 
 
 
 
PROBATIVENESS VERSUS THE RISK OF UNFAIR PREJUDICE: 403
 
RULE 403: EXCLUDING RELEVANT EVIDENCE FOR PREJUDICE, CONFUSION, WASTE OF TIME, OR OTHER REASONS
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following:
unfair prejudice
confusing the issues
misleading the jury
undue delay
wasting time; or
needlessly presenting cumulative evidence
This rule is discretionary
The scale needs to be substantially tipped in order for evidence to be excluded
Every piece of evidence is inherently prejudiced and will slightly tip the scale
Note: Surprise is NOT a 403 ground for exclusion
 
PHOTOS AND OTHER INFLAMMATORY EVIDENCE
Generally, a photo will be allowed in unless it w