Evidence 2020 Lecture Notes; Conditional Relevance PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture Notes; Conditional Relevance...

Description

Evidence 2020 Lecture Notes; Conditional Relevance

Conditional Relevance *Sort of like circumstantial evidence – admitted based on inferences that a reasonable jury could make 2) FRE § 104(b) a) When the relevance of evidence depends on whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient [“by a preponderance of the evidence” – SCOTUS in Huddleston v. U.S.] to support a finding that the fact does exist. The court may admit the proposed evidence on the condition that the proof be introduced later. i) If you haven’t proved one of the links in the chain, the Court can admit evidence on the condition the missing link be proved at some point ii) If not proved, the jury can be instructed to disregard it (1) HYPO: Drug possession case D is charged with possession cocaine. A chemist saying a bag of cocaine indeed contains cocaine. Must first establish that the substance the chemist tested belonged to D. Established chain of custody (account for every time the bag is opened; log kept so you can go back in time and prove that the cocaine was the D’s) – requires a lot of testimony. (a) What if the chemist is only available on the first day of trial and the cop is only available later? (i) The court may admit the proposed evidence on the condition that the proof be introduced later 1. 104(b) allows out of order; jury instruction where judge says that this evidence is admissible as long as the later fact is introduced also iii) Tactical Advantage ! Allows flexibility in terms of the order in which you call your witnesses; maybe availability issues, maybe story is told best in a certain order b) Typically, the judge will instruct the jury that it is being admitted subject to the prosecution proving that the bag of drugs came from the D. Chain of custody proves this. c) HYPO: Civil dispute involving breach of K. Letter in which D purportedly admitted fault. Other side wants that letter into evidence. Conditional fact = D wrote the letter. Could be established by handwriting analysis or a witness to the writing. Preponderance of the Evidence *more likely than not – lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt 1) Problem 1.7 a) Threat to disclose

i) Wife was murdered and prosecution believes it was the Husband; Pros wants to enter evidence that D knew that their oldest son was not biologically his and that D killed V because V threatened to tell her son about his real father ii) Can this be an acceptable motive argument without proof of knowledge about the paternity? (1) Pros argument (a) Timeline (b) D referred to the child as “her older son” not “our older son” (c) Basically the pros says that there is an acceptable inference that V would have told D about the plan to disclose the paternity to their son because of D’s testimony to cops (2) Defense argument (a) D could have been nervous and slipped up 2) Tactical strategy ! Making an objection a) Conditional fact ! better objection argument because the standard is higher than regular “any tendency” relevancy objection 3) Cox v. State – Supreme Court of Indiana 1998 a) FACTS: i) V was sleeping in his house when D shot him in the eye through the bedroom window; the pros intends to introduce evidence that shows that D knew about his friends bail hearing and retaliated against V because V brought charges against the friend ii) Evidence only relevant if D was on notice about the bail hearing (1) Evidence: D spent almost every day at his friends house where the mother lived both before and after the bond hearing; up to the shooting D was close with his friend and the friends mother attended the hearing (a) The link is Hammer’s mother – she must have told D about the bail hearing because then D goes out and shoots V in the eye b) ISSUE: i) Is the evidence relevant if it is based on a circumstantial fact? Could D argue that the evidence is inadmissible because it could be relevant only if Cox knew what happened at the hearing and the State couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Cox knew? c) HOLDING: i) The evidence is admissible d) REASONING: i) Standard for relevance that depends on a fact (FRE 104(b)) (1) The judge must determine only that a reasonable jury could make the requisite factual determination based on the evidence before it by a preponderance of the evidence ii) The court ruled that the evidence provided by the state was sufficient to support the inference that D knew what happened at the hearing e) RULE: i) Standard for relevance that depends on a fact (FRE 104(b))

(1) The judge must determine only that a reasonable jury could make the requisite factual determination based on the evidence before it by a preponderance of the evidence ii) A small gap that makes common sense to fill in, a reasonable inference, can be filled in and meet the PoE standard 3) Problem 1.6 a) Sherrod v. Berry i) A Chicago police officer was charged with manslaughter after shooting V and claiming self-defense; D found V coming out of a speak easy close to the scene of a murder and saw him carrying something (a violin); D thought V raised it up and maybe had a gun in there to shoot him so D shot and killed V ii) Is the evidence of the absence of a gun relevant? Could the absence of a gun be material to D’s claim of self defense? (1) Probably inadmissible (a) In this case, the officer is not saying he saw a gun, rather he is saying he saw the V position the case as if he were aiming something (b) Thus, evidence that V was unarmed is irrelevant for impeachment purposes because the jury needs to determine the reasonableness of D’s actions limited to the facts known to D when he acted...