EVIDENCE PROBLEMS2

PROBLEMS #2: Relevant but Inadmissible Evidence; The Exclusion of unfairly prejudicial and other Evidence [Fed. R. Evid. 403] 1. 4-1: A killed in car accident late one night, sued truck driver…D wanted evidence in on blood resulted of A’s blood alcohol level, but nurse said that she didn’t smell alcohol: prejudicial against A, but NOT unfairly prejudicial [A argues that they have a better witness and should not offer conflicting evidence]judge should allow both and the jury decides who to believe 2. 4-2: Probability Evidence of Guilt in a Criminal Case—focus is on did this guy commit the murder and introduce evidence that 1 in 12 million chance: formula is logically irrelevant…artificially small population that you are using when limit to small town of 4,000, rather than larger area = Kept out for likelihood of misleading the jury [Objection, 403, misleading the jury] 3. 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 determination = Unfair Prejudice a. 4-3: Showing color pictures of gruesome murder scene in trial against contract killer i. Objection, 403, unfair prejudice ii. MOST of the time, the full color gruesome photos will be allowed in…in violent crime situations, the gruesomeness iii. Probative value must be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice b. 4-4: P lost his legs during accident i. Telling what happened during the accident = probative value is high because pain and suffering is a real issue ii. Showing jury his stumps = high probative value c. 4-5: Day in the life of person injured in a crane accident…necessary for determining damages [probative value NOT substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice] d. 4-6: White officers shot undercover black cops because they though were robbing a lady i. Statistical data about race issuesIf relevant at all, only to explain the ‘reasonableness’…downside that it would come off as racist [P could offer that police officers were not reasonable, but they were being racist] ii. Assailants were male and youngCould confuse the issues!! 4. 4-9: WW testifies for P in slip and fall personal injury case…P contends that D negligently allowed puddles water to accumulate on D’s walkway where P fell…W testify that he observed puddles regularly form on walkway in 3 weeks priorRelevant because if show there were puddles before they were likely there when P fell…Circumstances that need to be brought to judge’s attention = similarities in condition, relevant to if puddles were negligently allowed to accumulate a. Testify that he saw 3 people fall on same walkway that weekNeed to know why the people fell…did they fall on puddles b. Assuming that trying to show D had notice of dangerous [NOT just negligent, reckless], then the fact that people had fallen in the prior week is much more relevantpuddles fairly low probative value if not connected up 5. 4-10: FF shipped frozen shrimp with BS…shrimp spoiled en route to FF and FF brought suit against BS…issue is how to interpret requirements of K, BS attempted to introduce evidence prior K with parties concerning sale of claims, FF objected: Need to know if they had similar contracts to get them in…if something unique about shrimp shipping [mussels/clams]if similar contract provisions, high probative value and less risk of unfair prejudice/misleading the jury 6. 4-11: S injured when thrown from ride, S sued ride’s owner and manufacturer…D attempted to offer evidence of absence of occurrence of accident in previous 5,000 ridesMOST likely this evidence will be excluded = ambiguity that don’t really have solid proof that someone was hurt…doesn’t go to evidence of the operator being hurt on this day [highly misleading that just because they managed to do it right 5,000 times they could have been negligent this time]…also no proof that the accidents have actually been reported 7. 4:12: P injured when machine exploded, sued manufacturer…at trial P attempted to introduce evidence concerning other machine explosions: Strong showing of similarities of circumstances = could be admissible, but operated under different conditions…without showing of similar circumstances, do NOT have a lot of probative value 8. 4:13: Suit for sexual harassment, attempted to introduce evidence of prior claims of sexual harassment by D: If all claims were dismissed = danger of confusing/misleading the jury makes it more likely that this evidence will come in2 substantiated claims, probably makes it likely that he is prone to this sort of conduct [harbors intent that he is prone to this sort of conduct]…probative value v. could be highly unfairly prejudicial or it could confuse the jury = judge uses common sense and judged by standard 9. 4:14: J arrested and charged with burglary [breaking/entering at night with intent to commit felony] and accused of stealing 5 expensive suits…prosecution offers evidence: a. Closet: 200 pairs men’s socks = irrelevant; Towels some with hotel monogram= relevant, but low probative value [if stole from hotel, could steal again] b. 40 suits in closet = Suits low probative value [relevant] c. Stolen underwear year before = relevant but probative value outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice [higher probative value]…could argue pattern of behavior [stealing] 10. 4-15: Car accident and F sues S for negligence, F offers video of scalp wound being sutured…doesn’t prove negligence, but possibly damages/pain & sufferingNOT probative on point but could be unfairly prejudicial based on passion, rather than reasoning 11. 4-16: A slips and fell in hotel lobby a. A offers evidence that in 2 weeks 9 others fell: Other people falling, must know why are they fallingsubsequent events could have relevance to failure to fix after notice = need to know more about the similarities of the events b. Expert testimony of slipperiness that performed experiment in lobber of another building on similar floor that was 2 years older [floor A fell on had been destroyed and remodeled] = don’t know enough about the similarities because the other floor is gone…expert must also be scientifically based c. Maintenance/repair records are NOT relevant because they do NOT prove anything in relation to her fall d. A fell twice before that week = need to know the circumstances of her fall [reason to fall (low probative value) v. balancing problem (higher probative value)] e. Hotel offered evidence that no one had fallen on floor in 3 months prior = similar problem to rollercoaster…did no one fall or did no one complain [doesn’t matter no one fell before, just now] 12. 4-20: J charged with murder…at trial, prosecution calls expert witness to testify that bite marks found on victim made by J: If bites were inflicted at the time of death, it would be more relevantneed to know when the bite marks were inflicted…if at the time of death it would be more probative = however, could likely exclude on expert evidence rules [not particularly probative of cause of death]