Cases Flashcards
United States v. Dillion
(6th Cir. 1989)
General Admissibility
Defendant was charged with drug offence and appealed because court allowed his flight to be admitted as evidence. The Court said the lower court didn’t err.
Four-Step Analysis Regarding Relevance of Flight
- Defendant’s behavior to flight – defendant left four days after finding out about the charge
- Flight to conscious of guilt – when a defendant flees soon after hearing that his co-defendant will be testifying against him, that can be considered notice and it’s reasonable to infer guilt
- Conscious of guilt to conscious of guilt for the crime charged – same as 2
- Conscious of guilt for the crime charged to actual guilt of the crime – the defendant didn’t contest this.
State v. Wisdom
(Mo. 1894)
General Admissibility
Defendant was charged with first-degree murder. There was a superstition that if the murderer touched the corpse, it would bleed. Defendant refused to touch it and objected to its relevance.
- It was relevant under FRE 401 because it had a tiny chance to be probative
- If the defendant didn’t believe in the superstition, it wouldn’t have been probative.
People v. Garcia
(Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2014)
General Admissibility
A female defendant was charged with sexually assaulting a girl.
- The court said evidence that the defendant was a lesbian should have been inadmissible under FRE 403 because people are prejudice against gay people.
- Professor Nicholas says saying it’s relevant is saying there’s a tiny bit of truth to the idea that a lesbian is more likely to prey on girls and that’s not true. Therefore, it’s not relevant.
United States v. Evans
(9th Cir. 2013)
Conditional Relevance
The defendant was charged with two crimes and his defense to both was that he was a citizen.
- The defendant had a delayed birth certificate (meaning his information wasn’t sent in until a year after he was born) and the prosecution wanted it excluded because it said it was based on fraudulent information. The lower court excluded it.
- The Ninth Circuit said the trial judge erred in not allowing the birth certificate into evidence. Whether it was relevant depended on whether it was based on fraudulent information and that was a fact for the jury to decide.
- The judge erred in making the credibility determination.
- FRE 104(a) and FRE 104(b) tell us how to apply other evidentiary rules
United States v. Caldwell (5th Cir. 2009)
Discretionary Exclusion of Relevant Evidence
The defendant was charged with child porn. The government wanted to use short clips from the videos as evidence. The lower court allowed three clips despite the defendant’s offer to stipulate he had the child porn and transported it across state boarders.
- The lower court said the jury needed to see how horrible child porn is
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Unlike Old Chief, the videos were part of a narrative that told a story to the jury rather than evidence that proved an element
Kalispell v. Miller (Mont. 2010)
Discretionary Exclusion of Relevant Evidence
The defendant was charged with obstruction of justice because she called the police and told them that her partner’s call was a hoax to protect her partner.
- The government wanted to include evidence that they had a sexual relationship and that proved motive, and the lower court allowed because it would be relevant if it was a man and a woman
- The higher court said it was too prejudicial to allow because people are bias against gay people
Campbell v. Keystone Aerial Surveys, Inc. (5th Cir. 1998)
Discretionary Exclusion of Relevant Evidence
A son committed suicide a year after his father died in a plane crash. The family wanted to use that as evidence of all their mental anguish.
- The lower court excluded the suicide because the judge was afraid the jury would blame the defendant for it. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision to leave it out because it had a low probative value regarding the family’s mental anguish. (abuse of discretion standard)
- The lower court also excluded photos, videos and oral testimony of how the father’s body was burnt and mangled. The family saw the body. The Fifth Circuit said it wasn’t an abuse of discretion to exclude the photos because seeing them might have caused undue prejudice. However, it should not have excluded the other evidence because it went to mental anguish.
Diehl v. Blaw-Knox (3rd Cir. 2004)
Subsequent Remedial Measures
The plaintiff got hurt because of the defendant’s design flaw in a road widener. A third party made improvements so it wouldn’t happen again.
- The court found the evidence admissible because it wouldn’t hurt the third party.
- The FRE does not override the common law and the common law did not exclude evidence of improvements made by third parties
Anderson v. Malloy (8th Cir 1983)
Subsequent Remedial Measures
The plaintiff was assaulted and raped in a hotel room. Afterwards, the defendant installed chain locks and peep hole.
- The court ruled that evidence of improvement could be used to impeach the defendant and show feasibility. Before the crime, the defendant said he did everything he could to ensure safety but then made improvements afterwards.
- The majority defined feasibility as “the possibility of operation and its costs and convenience, bur also to its ultimate utility and success in its intended performance.”
- The dissent define feasibility as capable of being done. This is the most common definition.
Sims v. Great American Life Ins. Co.
10th Cir. 2006
Subsequent Remedial Measures
A man committed suicide by driving off the road. The jury found it was an accident. The defendant appealed saying the court improperly used the FRE instead of the state rules.
- Erie Doctrine – Federal courts must use state substantive rules in diversity cases that don’t use federal law
- The Erie Doctrine doesn’t apply to the FRE
- In diversity cases and in cases where the federal court is resolving state law issues pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction, the federal court will apply the FRE.
- In resolving the materiality aspect of relevance (401/402) in such cases, federal courts may need to look at state law
- The FRE expressly require federal courts to use state law in the following situations:
- FRE 302 – presumptions in civil cases
- FRE 413-415 – some definitions in sex law cases
- FRE 501 – privileges in civil cases
- FRE 601 – witness competence in civil cases
Weems v. Tyson Foods Inc. (8th Cir. 2011)
Compromise, Offers and Settlements
The plaintiff sued the defendant for employment discrimination. The parties differed in opinion be about the meaning of a document.
- “A dispute exists for Rule 408 purposes so long as there is an actual dispute or difference in opinion regarding a party’s liability for or the amount of the claim.” This can happen even before one of the parties thinks of litigation.
- The plaintiff wanted to enter the document as evidence.
- The district court said he document was inadmissible because it was in dispute. The Circuit Court affirmed because the district court has discretion under FRE 104 to make that decision.
United States v. Roti (7th Cir. 2007)
Compromise, Offers and Settlements
The defendant wanted to use his civil action against his lawyer to show that his lawyer was partially to blame for his bankruptcy fraud. He appealed claiming the district court wrongfully excluded evidence about the settlement.
- The circuit court affirmed
- FRE 408 applies to future civil and criminal cases
United States v. Green
(11th Cir. 2016)
Pleas, Plea Discussions and Related Statements
The defendant claimed his nolo contendere conviction was not admissible under FRE 410.
- A plea is the action of the defendant, whereas a conviction is an action of the court
- While nolo contendere convictions are not barred by FRE 410, under hearsay rules they cannot be used to prove the substance of the underlying acts. So if a party in a subsequent case wants to prove that the defendant engaged in the conduct that led to the nolo contendere conviction, the party must do so using independent evidence of that conduct.
United States v. Mezzanatto (1995)
Pleas, Plea Discussions and Related Statements
The defendant waived his FRE 410 rights because the prosecutor said he wouldn’t enter plea discussions without that condition. When the prosecutor used statements from the plea discussions to impeach the defendant, he objected.
- SCOTUS said the evidence rules are “presumptively waivable.” The ability to waive them is an advantage to the defendant, especially if the prosecutor thinks the defendant will lie and so would not otherwise consider plea bargaining.
- Subsequent cases in the lower courts say that the prosecutor cannot only use this evidence to impeach the defendant but also in its case-in-chief as evidence of guilt.
State v. Canady
Haw. 1996
Disagreement with Owens
- Similar facts as Owens
- Some states disagree with Owens’s outcome
- HRE 802.1(1) requires a witness to be able to testify about the events so memory matters
- The witness’s testimony was inadmissible
Tome v. United States
(1995)
Declarant-Witness’s Prior Statement
Common Law v. FRE 801(d)(1)(B)
- Under the common law, a witness’s consistent prior statement could only be used to rehabilitate the credibility of a witness who was impeached by a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.
- The FRE added that a witness’s prior consistent statement can be substantial evidence
United States v. Reed
7th Cir. 2000
Opposing Party Statements
The defendant testified at his first trial, which ended in a hung jury. He chose not to testify at his second trial, so the government offered the defendant’s testimony from his first trial into evidence
- The district court found the defendant guilty and he appealed saying his statements were not against his interest
- The Seventh Circuit said the defendant’s statements don’t have to be harmful for the government to admit them as evidence under FRE 801(d)(2)(A)
Pau v. Yosemite Park and Curry Co.
9th Cir. 1994
Opposing Party Statements
The plaintiff’s wife died in a biking accident. The defendant used the plaintiff’s statement that his wife didn’t know how to use a foot break as evidence that they weren’t liable
- The district court allowed the statement and the defendant appealed saying it was hearsay and prejudicial
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed because admissions of a party opponent don’t have to be based on personal knowledge
United States v. Ward
7th Cir. 2004
Adopted Statements
A husband and his wife robbed a bank. The husband entrusted the money to his sister. While they were talking, the defendant’s sister said something about the money and the defendant’s response was silence
- The sister made a deal with the government to testify against the defendant. The defendant objected that he didn’t hear her
- The Seventh Circuit said there were lots of evidence that the defendant heard her so the sister’s statement was excluded from the hearsay rule
United States v. Paulino
1st Cir. 1994
Adopted Statements
The government used a rent receipt to tie the defendant to an apartment involved in narcotics trafficking. The defendant claimed it was hearsay. The district court said it wasn’t hearsay and the First Circuit affirmed because under the possession plus theory, if the circumstances tie the defendant and the receipt together, the defendant can be said to have adopted the receipt. There was other evidence, like the defendant’s name was on the receipt and he had the only key
Mahlandt v. Wild Canine Survival and Renewal Center Inc.
8th Cir. 1978
Authorized Persons on Behalf of a Business
A little boy got hurt from an alleged wolf attack. The defendant’s employee, who didn’t witness the attach, notified Wild Canine via a not to the company’s president and then verbally, and the event was discussed at a board meeting
- The trial judge did not admit the statements because the declarants didn’t have personal knowledge
- The Eighth Circuit said the note and verbal statement were admissible against the defendant and its employee as statements he made. The board meeting minutes were not admissible against the employee because he wasn’t at the meeting, but they were admissible against the company. But FRE 403 justified the trial court’s reasoning
Romani v. State
Fla 1989
Conspirator Statements
Florida does not allow judges to look at the hearsay statement when determining whether to admit it. Instead, courts must rely on independent evidence that there was a conspiracy and each member’s participation in it
United States v. Yazzle
10th Cir. 1999
Habit Evidence
The defendants challenged their conviction for second degree murder because the district court restricted the defendants’ use of habit evidence that the victim was a violent man to establish self defense
- The trial court only found that the victim’s act of putting a gun in his belt everyday was admissible habit evidence, while the facts that he picked on weak people, sold stolen goods and did drugs were inadmissible character evidence
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed this decision because habit evidence can be inappropriately used as a back door for proving character evidence. The test to distinguish character evidence from habit evidence involves the number of times the person did something consistently. This gives rise to different opinions, so the evidence admitted was up to the trial court’s discretion.
United States v. Krapp
8th Cir. 1987
Character Evidence
The prosecutor asked the witness whether he knew the defendant and her husband withheld income on her tax return
- The defendant asked for a mistrial because the question was not asked in good faith – the tax return was a draft – and prejudicial
- The trial just instructed the jury to ignore it
- The appellate court said it was prejudicial and an error, but it was a harmless error and so didn’t grant a mistrial
United States v. Hewitt
11th Cir. 1981
Character Evidence
Four witnesses testified to the defendant’s good character and defendant asked for a mistrial because the prosecutor asked if they knew the defendant was about to go to trial for theft in another jurisdiction.
- The prosecutor did it to show how well the witnesses knew the defendant so the court allowed it
- Universally, you can ask character witnesses about anything the defendant has done, except for the current charge being tried
State v. Terrazas
Ariz. 1997
In Arizona (and many other states), in order for prior bad acts to be admissible, to protect the defendant against unfair prejudice, there must be clear and convincing evidence that the act occurred and the defendant committed it
United States v. Smalls
10th Cir. 2014
Character Evidence
The defendant’s cellmate died of what seemed like an asthma attack. There was suspicion that the defendant killed his cellmate because five months earlier he threatened to kill his wife in the same way by depriving her of her inhaler
- The government wanted to use this evidence to show a signature quality
- Factors to Examine When Deciding Signature Quality (Not Exhaustive)
- Geographic location
- Skills needed
- Distinctive devices
- Unique traits
- This analysis focuses on the quality of the evidence, not the quantity. So even one really distinctive feature could be enough to show a signature quality
- Because of the willingness to use asthma to cover up the crime and the short time between the attempted assault and the murder, the court allowed the evidence
United States v. Miller
7th Cir. 2012
Character Evidence
The defendant was convicted of possessing drugs with intent to sell, even though he said the drugs were not his.
- The lower court allowed the prosecutor to offer evidence of the defendant’s prior drug conviction and the prosecutor basically use it as propensity evidence disguised as showing intent
- The Seven Circuit said the lower court erred because even though the evidence was used to show intent, the “bad acts evidence was not probative of intent except through an improper propensity inference”
- When doing a 404(b) analysis, the court must decide whether the evidence is offer for a proper purpose and then do a 403 analysis to decide whether its probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice
United States v. Saenz
9th Cir. 1999
The defendant tried to use evidence that the victim was a violent person to prove reasonable belief for a self-defense defense but the lower court wouldn’t allow it. The Ninth Circuit said the lower court did not err in excluding it. Rule 404(b) does not allow a defendant to introduce evidence that he knew of his victim’s propensity for violence to show the defendant’s state of mind.