EVIDENCE NOTES2

Chapter 3: Basic Relevancy Problem Sets #1 & #2 I. RELEVANCE: Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402: a. Federal Rules: i. 401—Definition of “Relevant Evidence”: “Relevant evidence” means 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 ii. 402—Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible: All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the US, 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 b. Admissibility of Piece of EvidenceMUST always consider relevancy…how is this relevant?? i. If relevant = admissible [NOT necessarily admitted] ii. Gatekeeper = always asked c. Relevancy: ANY tendency to make a fact that is of consequence to the action more or less likely i. Relevance [established when meet any tendency threshold] v. Probative Value [considers how far the piece of evidence goes to prove] 1. Relevance = understanding that it describes how one thing relates to another thing, if at all [relationship indicates that there is some connection between 2 things based on inferences] 2. Oriented around probabilitiesnumerous inferences may be drawn from a single premise 3. Relevancy depends on the facts of the case ii. E.g.—drunk driving case with empty beer can in backseat = can draw a chain of logical deductions to show the relevance if the can is in the car, then it does increase the likelihood that the drive consumed the contents and he may have consumed within a short time before getting behind the willmore likely that he consumed and could be intoxicated 1. More probative if ½ empty cold can next to driverrelevant 2. Less probative if clipped coupon in seat next to driverbut still relevant iii. Legal Test of Relevance: Relevant if it is: 1. Probative [to make something more or less likely…chain of inferences can be constructed that connects the evidence to the case] of 2. A Fact of consequence to the determination of the action [fact that is “properly provable” in a case] iv. E.g.—Suit regarding contract breach of contract… 1. Evidence of prior K that involved clean-up = allowed in because clarifies a fact of consequence in the caseintent of parties as it relates to their current agreement = more likely P to win [if prior K requires garbage disposal, then increases likelihood that this K requires the same] 2. P’s conviction of Grand theft auto 5 years earlier = impeachment of P with a felony conviction makes a fact of consequence, P’s believability, less likely, and thereforeless likely P’s claim will succeed v. Credibility of a Witness = ALWAYS material: 1. Materiality: a. What has to be proved b. Witness Credibility [anything that bears upon the credibility of the witness…] 2. Any fact that tends to prove if the witness is or is NOT telling the truth will be material!! vi. E.g.—1 car accident = suicide or accident??...decedent was sad on day of accident = probative of suicide because sadness tends to make it more likely decedent was depressed, thus motive for suicide BASIC RELEVANCY: a. Federal Rules: i. 104(b)—Relevancy conditioned on fact: 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 II. III. ii. 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 b. Conditional Relevance—problem if evidence is admitted conditionally…when the relevance of evidence depends on the existence of a separate fact, the evidence is considered to be conditionally relevant i. Objection = NO foundation ii. E.g.—Proffered Evidence = gun: 1st call police officerthen call ballistics man to say that tests were run and this was the murder weapon 1. Fingerprint evidence links gun to the victim and defendant [1 step at a time approach to relevancy] 2. Conditionally relevant because must be linked to other evidence a. Judge can admit evidence conditionally on fact that will prove it was weapon used b. Jury must be instructed to find that (1) it was the gun used at the crime scene and (2) it was the weapon used at the murder = jury COULD find that it is relevant 3. If a reasonable jury would NOT find relevant = judge can instruct c. Review: i. 401: Relevancy—any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence ii. 104(b): Conditional Relevance—ONLY if the jury could NOT find that the weapon was the murder weapon, then the judge could keep the information out = judge performs a gate-keeping function Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time: Fed. R. Evid. 403: a. Evidence comes in, UNLESS probative value is substantially outweighed by FACTORS: i. Concern for trial fairness and accuracy [due process concerns]: 1. Unfair Prejudice—unfairly convicted or misled…MOST common objection a. Causes jury to decide case based on passion and emotion, rather than facts b. E.g.—reckless homicide based on manufacturing…probative that victims were dead, NOT gruesome photos of dead high school students [design and manufacture of Pinto so defective, get photos out in limine, rather than waiting for trial] 2. Confusion of issues 3. Misleads Jury ii. Judicial Efficiency: 1. Undue Delay 2. Wastes time 3. Needlessly cumulative b. Forces you to weigh the probative value of the evidence i. E.g.—drunk driver in bar = high probative value v. collects beer cans = low probative value ii. Balancing TEST: probative value v. unfair prejudice/confusion of issues/misleads jury/undue delay/wastes time/needlessly cumulative iii. RULE: If probative value is equal to weight of unfair prejudice = evidence is admittedDon’t forget BOTH sides of the equation! c. Probability Evidence of Guilt in a Criminal Case—statistical evidence is routinely admitted at trial to assist the trier of facthowever, probability evidence specifically offered to show the unlikelihood that another person with same characteristics as D committed crime charged = evidence is particularly misleading to jury and generally excluded d. Evidence of Excessive Violence—improper to offer evidence that so blinds a jury to the facts of the case that the jury makes an emotional decision = unfair prejudice e. Similar Occurrences, Happenings, and Events—prior similar conduct or course of action i. E.g.—act of person driving too fast = governed by specific rule [person’s own actions]NOT 403 f. ii. E.g.—If accident occurs and don’t know how it happened, had a number of accidents at particular site and don’t know what the cause was…those accidents can shed light on how this particular accident came about = use prior occurrences to figure out what happened in this specific situation 1. Probative value is slight because it is NOT necessarily related to accident on this occasion 2. Danger of unfair prejudice/confusing/misleading jury is fairly high 3. Evidence is often excluded iii. Significant similarities = raise the probative value and lessening danger of unfair prejudice/confusing the issues/misleading the jury 1. Relevant, but NOT too relevant = try to show the similarities…if get probative value to equal unfair prejudice, the evidence comes in 2. Judge gets to make judgment call on value of the evidence against danger of unfair prejudice iv. Evidence of similar occurrence is generally offered to corroborate or bolster a party’s theory of case…insufficient quantity of direct evidence about incident or event to adequately explain it 1. Similar events evidence is commonly offered in following occurrences: a. Accidents [show causation or dangerousness of instrumentality] b. Sales of property or services [to show value] c. Prior course of dealing between the parties [to show the meaning of a contract provision] d. Prior custom or usage in the industry [to show the meaning of an action or document] 2. Lack of similar occurrence/events offered to show absence of culpability v. Evidence of similar happenings and events often excluded at trial: 1. Type of evidence has great potential for unfair prejudice [dissimilarities in circumstances diminish worth of evidence] 2. Jurors may be misled or distracted by other events [led to focus on nuances of other events, rather than issue] 3. No matter how similar, prior events are collateral to specific facts to be decided vi. E.g.—J’s house was condemned by state and wanted to introduce evidence about the worth of other houses in neighborhoodmore probative sales price will be if you can show the similarities between J’s house and other homes Old Chief v. US—D stipulated to evidence of prior criminal conviction, but P wanted to introduce evidence with sole purpose to prove element of prior conviction…found that danger of unfair prejudice outweighed probative value of record of conviction i. Facts—felon is convicted of possessing firearm…D wants to stipulate to fact that he is convicted felon 1. Prosecutor wants to introduce evidence that he was convicted of assault with deadly weapon, NOT just tax fraud 2. Want jury to decide case for whatever reason ii. S. Ct. concerned that this is unfairly prejudicial = because of past, will be convicted in futureCourt generally does NOT interfere with prosecutor’s/judge’s decision in judge’s discretion to allow evidence in = judge abused discretion by allowing prosecutor to put in evidence that is relevant?? iii. Court NOTES: Rule 403 1. Status Crime—likely that he will be convicted on status as criminal [doesn’t show anything about intent that bears on status crime (E.g.—1st degree murder because of violent history would be allowed in)] 2. Admission—D willing to admit status, if willing to admit status, nature of the crime adds NOTHING to the case [looking for marginal increase in probative value and there is NONE] v. danger of unfair prejudice [high because he did a bad thing and jury may convict him on this basis]