Evidence Practice Problems Chapters 1 -3 PDF

Preview

Summary

Practice Problems from Class Coursework Ch 1 -3...

Description

Evidence 2020

PRACTICE PROBLEMS – WAYS AROUND PROPENSITY BOX Legislative exceptions to 404 1) Law and Order clip a) D on trial for killing his ex-wife/gf – no V body found; a different exgf testifies i) Why did the D not make a 404 objection? (1)California has a unique law that allows propensity evidence in DV cases Proof of Knowledge 1) Problem 3.1 – Hacker a) FACTS: i) Kid caught hacking into local computer company and had computers delivered. On a second occasion he was caught and charged for 2 instances. Plead guilty on 2nd instance. On trial for 1st one. Prosecution wants to introduce into evidence the 2nd hack. b) THOUGHTS: i) Pros argument ! this shows knowledge of how to hack, not propensity ii) Def argument ! 403 balance – prejudice jury against him and doesn’t reflect whether he did this instance iii)Pros counter argument ! high probative value & can mitigate prejudice with a jury instruction iv) Rule 105 ! Limiting instruction (1)If the court admits evidence that it admissible for a purpose – but not against another party or for another purpose – the court, on timely request, must restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly

(2)MOJ, I instruct you that you may only consider this for the limited purpose that the D has the requisite knowledge to hack; you may not infer that the D is criminal or a hacker

2) Problem 3.2 – Drug Seller a) FACTS: i) Cops saw a drug transaction involving D. D says the cops got the wrong guy & he didn’t do it. P wants to introduce evidence of D’s prior convictions for selling drugs. b) THOUGHTS: i) Propensity based reasoning (1)This guy is a drug dealer in the past; so it is more likely that he was dealing drugs here ii) Probably admitted (1)Pros arg – knowledge of selling drugs; maybe motive if this is part of a larger drug scheme (2)Def arg – do you really need knowledge of this? It’s not a unique skill like hacking iii)Prof – much closer problem that depends on the location of the previous sales Proof of Motive 3) Problem 3.4 – US v. Peltier I a) FACTS: i) Murder of 2 FBI agents. Agents had followed D, D opened fire. P wants to introduce evidence that D had an open arrest warrant for attempted murder b) THOUGHTS: i) 404 arguments (1)PROBABLY ADMITTED UNDER MOTIVE GROUNDS

(a)Pros – his motive was potentially resisting arrest for the attempted murder warrant/charge (b)Def – is this really good evidence of motive? No proof he knew they were FBI agents, no proof that D knew why he ran and the warrant was for a crime that happened years ago in two states over ii) 403 arguments (1)HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL (a)Maybe offer jury instruction to mitigate jury prejudice (b)Or just only mention that there was a warrant and not mention the name of the crime (i) But Pros wants the name in because it’s such a heinous crime and goes towards motive...