EVIDENCE PROBLEMS1

PROBLEMS #1: Relevancy 1. #3-1: Judge Judy asked to decide which of 2 women claiming to be mother of an infant child was biological motherjudge said she was going to cut child in ½, 1 said NO and other was sad, but silent a. Women‟s reactions to decision relevant because could be probative [more or less likely that they are the biological mother by their reactions]How piece of evidence logically is relevant to the case: If the woman was the true mother, then it is more likely that the emotional reaction indicates she cares more for the baby and more likely that she is the true mother [deductive reasoning] 2. #3-2: F accused of killing friend J with single blow to head, trial prosecution wishes to introduce love letters written by F to J‟s wife months before J‟s death, D objects to introduction of letters a. If he wrote the letters it is more likely that they are having an affair, it is likely that he is in love with her and wants to be the only one in her life and wants to get rid of the husband, and there is a more likely motive for killing the husband. 3. #3-3: J left purse at snack bar and saw other patrons in area, but can‟t remember them…after movie purse in bathroom with all cash missing a. Bob paid for popcorn right before movie started with new $50 billIf Bob paid with $50 bills, he may have acquired it recently and may have acquired it from her purse and may have taken it from her purse [LOW in probative value, weak inference: may have taken from purse, but may have gotten in number of ways] = relevant, but NOT highly probative b. Susan and Jamie left movie halfway through filmIf they left early, it is possible that they left early to avoid detection = could be such low probative value, that grounds for keeping it out c. Harvey convicted of possession of marijuana in 1990If he broke the law before, then is more likely to break the law again = VERY weak link [NOT likely to come in], but NOT completely irrelevant [law breaker, could break the law again] d. Purse found in rest room [matter if men‟s or women‟s room = YES, probative as to more likely if it were male or female]: Purse found in women’s roomcould be argued from a male or female’s defense side = argue BOTH ways, low probative value could keep out as confusing: RELEVANT! 4. #3-4: Eddie from Boston was accused of robbing First City Bank of MassE alleged to use “Sat. Night Special” revolverRelevant to prosecution?? a. Eddie withdrew money at same bank day prior to robbery after having friendly 10-minute conversation with tellerRELEVANT because could be casing the bank, defense would argue that he wouldn’t want to have conversation with person that could later identify him, tendency to be argued on either side b. E had 8 year old bank robbery conviction in MdRELEVANT because SAME type of crime, capable of behavior [high probative value] c. E fired because of unproven allegation that he stole money from registerRELEVANT because might show that he is willing to steal [robbery = stealing by force or violence] d. E participated in 2 barroom brawls week before robberyRELEVANT because shows tendency toward violence e. E divorced and late on child support paymentsRELEVANT because shows that he needed money f. E broke and only $49 savings account in different bankRELEVANT because he needed money g. Law student with huge student loansRELEVANT because needed money h. E owned a rifle RELEVANT because he owns at least 1 fire arm, more likely to own another fire arm [Someone who owns fire arm is more likely to be robber than someone who does NOT own fire arm] i. E has 2 children, ages 4 and 7RELEVANT because defense would argue that he is less likely to commit a crime [he is a good dad] j. E convicted of marijuana possession on 2 occasions in 4 yearsRELEVANT because shows that he is willing to break the law [probative value is VERY low], minor offense compared to bank robbery, but shows inclination to break the law k. Likes rock music and alcohol—NOT RELEVANT, can NOT draw inference that rock to Bach and gin without tonic leads to violent behavior 5. #3-5: W brought suit against 3 insurance companies for her H, claimed body found in Apple Creek: Letter from A to H saying that he looked forward to fishing at end of Sept. and H been missing since 9/30RELEVANT because A planned to be at the Creek and A was there and if A planned to go and go with H and it is more likely that H planned to go and it is more likely that H went and if he did go at the end of Sept. it is more likely that it is his body found in the creek 6. #3-6: Suit based on respondeat superior, ONLY issue is whether acting within scope of employment or on fun and frolic detour, evidence that driver was NOT looking—NOT RELEVANT to the issue of the case, fact that is NOT of consequence to the issue of the case 7. #3-7: H found out that his house was burning down while driving, 7 months before purchased additional fire insurance 7 months before, issue at trial is if he burned down the house to get insurance money—RELEVANT because if he recently bought increased insurance, intended to benefit from insurance, then more likely that he intended burn down the house to benefit from the insurance 8. #3-8: JJ prosecuted fro robbing bank at 9 am and defense was mistaken identity a. Bank teller asked where he was at 8:55 am—RELEVANT to case involving mistaken identity, case rests on who can identify the person, can witness testify be able to identify D [foundational issue] b. How did you feel—bank robbery??—RELEVANT because if he felt fearful, how he felt is relevant to proving a robbery and it is essential element to the crime [fear could be argued both ways = bearing on ability to identify the robber] 9. #3-9: B charged with distribution of cocaine, friend called as witness to testify that he used cocaine with D— RELEVANT because if he had cocaine at the time, then he has a source, then he has distribution or could argue that he needs money to support habit and could distribute cocaine for money 10. #3-10: F prosecuted for assault and battery on A, F claims self-defense and F testifies that 3 rd party told A was out to get him a. RELEVANT because would affect F’s state of mind, if he believed he was about to be attacked, he thought he was using self-defense b. Does NOT matter so much that it was true c. Could have preemptively acted in self-defense 11. #3-11: J charged with sexual battery and his age is relevant to elements of offense, testimony of age of people that he sleeps with—NOT RELEVANT because determining HIS age, NOT age of people he is sleeping with 12. #3-12: Commuter Case where killed youths on train and thought he was acting in self-defense: Depending on jurisdiction—evidence about the defendant could be relevant or MORE strict self-defense standard would NOT allow the facts about the defendant in…Was D gay? Could be RELEVANT because fear of being attacked 13. #3-13: B observed purchasing bottle wine at 2…at 7 arrested for driving while intoxicatedprosecution offers evidence of B‟s wine purchase: RELEVANT because if he was buying alcohol then it is likely that he drinks alcohol, and someone who drinks alcohol is more likely to drive drunk a. Seen carrying empty bottle of wine: RELEVANT because if he is carrying a bottle of wine, then he may have drunk the contents of the bottle of wine, then he may be drunk on this day [Weak probative value…too tenuous] b. Carrying a ½ empty bottle of wine: Stronger inference than empty bottle of wine!! c. Smelled of beer: RELEVANT because it doesn’t appear that he was intoxicated by substance buying, but still intoxicated 14. #3-14: D offers testimony of P in worker‟s compensation that P tried to bribe me to testify in his favor: RELEVANT because if P trying to bribe the witness, then that shows uncertainty in the P’s mind about the strength of his own case, if he is that unsure about his own case, then it is likely that he does NOT have a case 15. #3-15: Belief that if accused of crime and jump off cliff, if innocent then would survive, otherwise would die a. Refusal to Jump: RELEVANT if can establish that everyone believes ONLY innocent survive, would be relevant [equally strong that he could not believe in this process] b. Within judge’s discretion to keep out or admit 16. #3-16: D is charged with extortion, evidence that D kept several guns in bedroom—RELEVANT because if he had guns, he had the ability to carry out threats and more likely to make threats [WEAK argument] 17. #3-17: G injured cutting hedges and blade found 10 feet from accident a. D objects for lack of foundationperson wanting to get the blade in will make an offer of proof…will later show that if was metal was linked to the cutter and assuming judge thinks that evidence is sufficient, jury has ultimate fact-finding determination and require jury to find that blade came from cutter b. Conditionally relevant because have to link that blade came from cutter [blade was cause of the accident] 18. #3-18: A accused of breaking in and gloves found: Gloves are conditionally relevant because must be linked to crime…if NOT they will be completely irrelevant = MUST be linked up to be relevant 19. #3-19: A charged with transporting heroin in condoms by swallowing them, claimed believed that he was swallowing diamonds, not drugs…professor to testify about feasibility of swallowing diamonds a. If proves NOT feasible, would prove that not reasonable he believed or if proved that worth of the venture, could lend toward motive to transporting the diamonds… b. Critical point to establish to make testimony relevant is that D believed he was transporting diamonds and this is conditionally relevant on the feasibility of the possibility [Jury has fact-finding role of believing the D] c. Burns testimony relevant ONLY if 1st establish that D believed he was swallowing diamonds i. General intent = relevant because feasibility/profitability would indicate that he had basis of believing this [subjective] ii. Specific intent = must be a reasonable belief [objective]…Burns testifies to reasonableness of beliefMORE probative 20. #3-20: U stopped by police officer and charged with driving under influence of alcohol: a. Relevant that he was at different bar earlier b. If collect beer cans, then likely that he drinks beer and if drinks he could have been driving under the influence [relevant, but low probative] c. Wife and kids is background information that he would not act in this manner [relevant] d. Convicting of DUI makes it more likely [convicted] that he would do it again [relevant] e. Reckless driving makes more likely commits crime [relevant] f. High-level executive [relevant because type of person unlikely to commit this crime] g. Keeps 6-pack in fridge is weak inference [relevant] h. Likes rock music [NOT relevant]…does NOT rationally bear on the fact that he would be drunk driving i. Runs important meeting Fri. morning = Conditionally Relevantdepends on when he got the DUI [Thurs. night v. Sun. morning] j. Has a „beer belly‟ = Conditionally Relevant on that he acquired it drinking beer, but NOT very likely