Proof of Modus Operandi (MO) – Pattern Crimes PDF

Preview

Summary

Notes on Pattern Crimes...

Description

Evidence 2020

1) Problem 3.8 – Cycling Brochures a) FACTS: i) What if instead of gambling slips, they found brochures of bike racing equipment ii) There is evidence the D used to be a semi-pro bike racer b) THOUGHTS: i) 404(a) Argument (1)More likely to get in (a)Being a “gambler” is a bad character trait – being a “biker” is not (maybe not even a character trait) (b)Less prejudicial to the D than slips of gambling papers ii) 403 probative/prejudice balancing (1)Relevant – makes it that much more likely he was there (2)But, little probative value – a lot of people bike (3)And, prejudice – might mislead the jury to think it’s more important than it really is Proof of Modus Operandi (MO) – Pattern Crimes **ONLY APPLIES IF IDENTITY IS AN ISSUE!!!! 2) US v. Trenkler a) FACTS: i) Bomb went off on car bomb, leading to death of one or more people. 404(b) evidence brought in on a previous bombing. There were a lot of similarities between the two. Key difference = material that would actually explode. P wanted to use to show D made the second bomb ii) Is evidence of the prior bomb admissible? b) HOLDING: i) ADMISSIBLE (1)Evidence had to be “sufficiently idiosyncratic” ! doesn’t have to be identical, but must have sufficient similarities

where it would make it so unlikely that it would be someone else (2)How do we know when an MO is similar enough to be an MO? ! this is essentially a signature of the criminal and the likelihood of someone else committing the crime is very low (3)This was this D’s signature because – homemade, radio controlled, made for use on third party, remote controlled, similar circuits, similar power supplies, etc. (4)But what about the prejudicial value of labeling someone as a bomb maker? Only 10/30 bomb characteristics matched. (5)Prof ! would lean in favor of this being the right decision – these do seem like pretty similar bombs – seems more like MO evidence rather than character propensity evidence (a)I thought Court would focus more on the key difference in the explosive but it ends up being the classic MO case (6)As long as you’re not making the argument “once a bomber, always a bomber” c) RULE: i) Evidence had to be “sufficiently idiosyncratic” ! doesn’t have to be identical, but must have sufficient similarities where it would make it so unlikely that it would be someone else ii) How do we know when an MO is similar enough to be an MO? ! this is essentially a signature of the criminal and the likelihood of someone else committing the crime is very low...