Evidence Class 3 33333333333333333333333 PDF

Preview

Summary

aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa aaa ...

Description

401 and 402 Review. Relevant evidence under 401 may be either directly or circumstantially relevant. Directly Relevant: Evidence that actually states the fact to be proven. Circumstantially Relevant: An offer of evidence which states fact A and the trier of fact, by a series of inferences, can deduce from A, fact B – the thing the offering party is attempting to prove. Example: Prosecutor must prove X murdered Y. Prosecutor offers into evidence a love letter from X to Y’s wife. We could infer from the love letter to Y’s wife that X loved Y’s wife and thus we could then infer that X may have wanted to have Y’s wife all to himself. If X had such desire, then maybe he hatched such a plan which would make Y’s wife his own. If X hatched this plan, maybe this plan involved murdering Y to get rid of him. If this plan including killing Y, then maybe X carried out this plan. If X carried out this plan, then X murdered Y. Remember the any tendency language – it’s fairly liberal. Any tendency to either prove or disprove a consequential fact of the case. >0% standard. There are 3 possible kinds of facts involved in evidentiary evidence. 1) Evidentiary Facts – Evidence according to the weird definition by Professor Lumbrick? (Facts/Evidence offered by a party to prove case on the merits.) 2) Facts that need to be proven during the trial for a party to win his/her case. These facts are not evidence. These are factual propositions that need to be proven. (i.e., X murdered Y.) 3) To be learned later. 401(b) – Fact needs to be of consequence to the case. Example: Prosecutor trying to prove that D murdered V with a hand grenade. What if the only testimony Prosecutor can get is that witness (W) saw that D had a hand grenade near the time and place of V’s murder and that’s it. This testimony would be circumstantially relevant. Criminal Law says that without an acceptable defense, D has criminal liability for killing V. If the substantive law demonstrates that the circumstantial evidence to prove the fact related to the case. Point is: The way you determine the second part of the relevancy definition is satisfied is by consulting the relevant substantial governing law. Knapp v. State A man is accused of first-degree murder. Defendant claims self-defense. Defendant argues that he killed the victim because he heard stories where the victim had previously killed an elderly man. In response, the state called a physician as a witness to testify that the old man supposedly killed by the marshal had died from alcohol and senility. The issue on appeal is the physician’s testimony. Defendant would take the position the testimony was not relevant via Rule 401. The Supreme Court disagreed and ruled the evidence was relevant. SC ruled there was no basis for the rumor he claims he heard since there was no reason to believe it and it was

not true. The testimony makes it more likely there was no rumor. If there was no rumor, then there was nothing to hear and scare the defendant with. Rule 403: The Balancing Test. 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. The rule says that the Court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by one of the more of the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

Unfair prejudice, Confusing the issues, Misleading the jury, Cause undue delay, Wasting time, or Needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Ballou v. Henri Studios Ballou died. Plaintiff represents the deceased and sues defendant on a theory of negligence. Plaintiff made a motion in leminity to exclude the results of the blood alcohol test of Ballou. Defendant wants to advance a theory of contributory negligence. Plaintiff called a nurse as a witness to testify that she removed stitches from Ballou prior to the accident and nurse claims that she did not smell alcohol on his breath and thus Ballou was not drunk. Another witness said that Ballou had no time to get drunk enough to have the blood alcohol test limit reached by the test. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant. The trial judge did not find the blood alcohol test as credible. Additionally, the test would unfairly prejudice the jury against Ballou. Court disagrees. Rule 403 balancing test weighed in favor of admitting evidence. In determining the probative value of an offer of evidence, under rule 403, the court must assume the offered evidence is true. The trial judge must also assume, under rule 401, the evidence is true. Then, the judge must assess the relevancy of the information. Old Chief: Rule 1) Dealing with proving a fact not in dispute: Evidence is still relevant under FRE 401, even if that evidence is directed at proving a fact that is not in dispute. Such evidence, however, may be excluded under the FRE 403 balancing test due to the proffered evidence causing a waste of time, unfair prejudice, etc. Rule 2) In assessing probative value and unfair prejudice under FRE 403: The trial court judge should consider what other evidence is available to the proponent to prove that the same fact. If there is other available evidence, that is equally probative on the fact and less prejudicial or inflammatory, than the probative value of the actually proffered evidence should be discounted. If discounted, it will make it easier to show the evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial value.

Another Rule: Relevancy is not a determination made in a vacuum. To the contrary, relevancy is determined from the point of view of the offering party. I.e., is the offering of evidence relevant to the offering parties’ case. If yes, then the evidence is relevant. If no, then the offering is not relevant. Now we are going to get into the special relevancy problems. Any cases not covered today from Tuesday’s reading and 109 – 121 AND 124 – 137....