Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 22
 
Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com
EVIDENCERELEVANCE
1.401 Definition of Relevant Evidence
a.“Relevant evidence” means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. b.
Admissibility v. Sufficiency
i.Weight or credibility of evidence does not affect relevance. Statements should be assumed credible.
 Ballou v. Henri Studios, Inc
 !th "ir. #$%#& 'udge reversed because he denied admissibility of nurses testimony that ( was not intoxicated) not believing it over toxicology results&.ii.*vidence having even only a slight tendency to prove a fact is admissible. #.
Union Paint and Varnish
 evidence that one can of paint purchased + months before the one in question was defective is admissible on a  breach of warranty claim&.
2.Compare
a.
 Knapp v. State
( claimed self defense in killing marshall b,c had heard of death of man in another arrest. *vidence admittedthat the story was false b,c it made d-s claim to have heard the story less likely& W/0 b.
Sherrod v. Berry
*vidence excluded that person was unarmed  b,c it exceeded the info the officer actually had and reasonably  believed at the time& 1.
40 Relevant Evidence Admissible
) sub'ect to exceptions) irrelevant evidence inadmissible.2.
40! E"clusion of #t$e%&ise Relevant Evidence' (alancin) *est
a.Relevant evidence may be excluded if its
+%obative value is
substantially outweighed 
 by
3i.the danger of unfair pre'udice) ii.confusion of the issues 4 'ury will use evidence for an improper purposeiii.misleading the 'ury 4 'ury will assign improper probative valueiv.considerations of undue delay) waste of time) or v.needless presentation of cumulative evidence. b."onsiderations for 5alancing between the probative and pre'udicial value of *vidence3 “sland "omparison 4 6arrative Richness 5alancing /est”7 8 # 8
 
Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com
i.
Vie& t$e evidence as an island
) estimating its probative value and the danger of substantial unfair pre'udicial risk aloneii.
E"+and t$e analysis to conside% t$e full evidentia%y conte"t
 and whether substitutes of equal probative value but less pre'udice exist including offered stipulations&.iii.
Conside% t$e %ic$ness and na%%ative inte)%ity of t$e +%esentin) case
#./here is value in proving the “natural sequence of events” and allowing the force of evidence to infer moral guilt , satisfy 'urors- expectations1.9rosecutor-s evidence will generally survive :R* ;<2 when a defendant seeks to substitute an admission for evidence creating a coherent narrative of his thoughts and actions in perpetrating the offense.iv.
Old Chie v. U.S.
=S #$$>& ( convicted of ?(W and later charged as a felonin possession of a deadly weapon. @overnment re'ected (-s stipulation that he had been convicted of a crime exceeding one year of punishment&.
RELEVANCE C,ARAC*ER - ,A(I* EVIDENCE
C$a%acte% Evidence
"haracter evidence) though probative) is generally excluded because it is extremely pre'udicial and there is a danger that a person will be convicted for “who they are.”#."haracter evidence admissible for reasons other than to show action in conformity therewith.a.
 !.".
notice.
Cle"horn v #e$ %or& Central 
 "t. of ?pp 6A7 #%>;& "an-t use "* to  prove employee drunk on the day of accident) but can use intemperance to prove notice to supervisors&.
.Limitations
a.?ccused-s "haracter3 ;<;a&#&i.?ccused may offer evidence of a
 pertinent 
 character trait for the purpose of showing action in conformity therewith
 
only through reputation or opinion&ii./he prosecution may respond by cross8examining the character witnesses on specific acts to test their qualifications or by introducing rebuttal character witnesses.  b.Bictim-s "haracter ;<;a&1&i.
Accused o+ens t$e doo%
3 f the accused introduces evidence of a victim-s violent character only through reputation or opinion&) the prosecution may respond with evidence of the accused-s violent character. c.;<;a&
e"ce+tions
 
only a++ly in c%iminal cases!.404b/ #t$e% C%imes %on)s o% Acts
a.
Not admissible
 to show character
in order to prove action in conormity there$ith
.8 1 8
 
Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com
 b.
E"ce+tion'
Cay be admissible to prove3 motive) opportunity) intent) preparation)  plan) knowledge) identity) or absence of mistake or accident) existence of a larger  plan) etc.c.
Admissibility
i.;<;b& evidence is relevancy conditioned on fact under #<;b&. ii.
 Huddleston
test3 is there enough evidence for a 'ury to conclude by a  preponderance of the evidence. /otality of the circumstances test 4 including the evidence that is sought to be offered7 there is nothing requiring independent evidence of the predicate fact.#.
 Huddleston v. US 
 =S #$%%& ( argued that evidence on /B-s should not be admitted b,c government failed to prove /B-s stolen&.iii.6o requirement that the other acts be prior in time to the act for which ( is on trial.
iv.*a2ea&ay'
#.*xtrinsic act evidence is only admissible if #& it falls w,in a ;<;b& exception7 1& it is not unfairly pre'udicial Dbut recall narrative richnessE7 and 2& it can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence that a& the act occurred and b& ( did the act.d.
3odus #+e%andi  Identity
3 the acts must be #& sufficiently similar to the charged offense and 1& sufficiently unique from the common practice so as to be marked as the handiwork of the defendant.
US v. Carrillo
 !th "ir. #$$2& drug distribution on street corner not enough&.e.
5atten Evidence
3 9atterns of acts may show identity) intent) plan) absence of mistake) or other grounds for admissibility) but pattern is not itself a reason to admit evidence of other crimes or wrongs.
US v. Beasley
 >th "ir. #$%>& drugs for plants&.f.
3otive Evidence
) is different from pure pattern evidence) and is admissible where motive is an issue in the case.
US v. Cunnin"ham
 >th "ir. #$$+& prior acts consistent with drug addition admissible to show motive for tampering with syringes&.
4.406 3et$ods of 5%ovin) C$a%acte%
a.
a/ Re+utation o% #+inion
. proof of an admissible character trait may only be made  by a certain type of evidenceFtestimony as to reputation or opinion. i.
E"ce+t'
Gn
c%oss7e"amination
) inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct.#.Cust be a
)ood7fait$ belief 
 that the instance of conduct occurred  before inquiring into on cross.
 'ichelson v. US 
 =S #$;%& watches&.1.6o extrinsic evidence.
(ound
 by witness-s response.2.0earsay exceptionF%<21#&Ffor testimony. b.
b/ S+ecific Instances of Conduct
. proof of specific instances of a person-s conduct may be made where character is an essential element of a charge) claim) or defense) i.*.g. defamation or other “ultimate issue8 2 8

Вознаградите свое любопытство

Все, что вы хотели прочитать.
Когда угодно. Где угодно. На любом устройстве.
Без обязательств. Отменить можно в любой момент.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505