Evidence Flashcards
A pro se defendant was charged with mail fraud. The defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years in prison. In response to the sentence, the defendant stated that he had been induced to plead guilty after the prosecutor assured him that the judge would only impose a three-month sentence and a small fine. After hearing evidence on the issue, the judge set aside the judgment and allowed the defendant to withdraw the guilty plea. At trial, the defendant testified to his innocence. The prosecution now seeks to introduce a certified copy of the guilty plea in which the defendant admitted to mail fraud.
Is the certified copy of the guilty plea admissible?
A. No, because the guilty plea was withdrawn.
B. No, because the privilege against self-incrimination bars the admission of a prior incriminating statement.
C. Yes, because a certified guilty plea is self-authenticating public record
D. Yes, to impeach the defendant with a prior inconsistent statement.
A man was charged with armed robbery of a store and denied that he was the person who had robbed the store. In presenting the state’s case, the prosecutor seeks to introduce evidence that the man had robbed two other stores in the past year.
Is this evidence admissible?
A. No, because character must be proved by reputation or opinion and may not be proved by specific acts.
B. No, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
C. Yes, to prove a pertinent trait of the man’s character and the man’s action in conformity therewith.
D. Yes, to prove the man’s identity.
A defendant has been charged with selling cocaine to a police informant. At trial, the alleged cocaine no longer exists, and the only evidence that the substance sold was cocaine is the informant’s testimony that it tasted like cocaine and gave her a cocaine-like sensation. The informant has no formal training in identifying controlled substances.
Should the court admit the informant’s opinion testimony that the substance was cocaine?
A. No, because identification of a controlled substance requires an expert with formal training.
B. No, because, without a quantity of the controlled substance for testing, opinion testimony is insufficient to make a prima facie case against the defendant.
C. Yes, if the court determines that the informant has sufficient knowledge and experience to identify the cocaine.
D. Yes, provided there is evidence sufficient to support a jury finding that the informant has sufficient knowledge and experience to identify cocaine.
What is an acceptable bases of Expert Opinion testimony under FRE?
A witness, who qualifies as an expert because of his knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify in the form of an opinion regarding scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.
Expert testimony must be based upon sufficient facts or data and must be the product of reliable principles and methods, which must be reliably applied to the facts of the case.
An expert may base his opinion on facts or data perceived by him or made known to him before or during the hearing.
An expert may base his opinion on facts that are inadmissible in evidence, if they are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field to form opinions on the subject matter.
The party offering the expert’s opinion to disclose to the jury inadmissible facts that the expert considered only if the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert’s opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.
When an expert reasonably relies on inadmissible information to form an opinion or inference, the underlying information is not admissible simply because the opinion or inference is admitted.
“[t]he information may be disclosed to the jury, upon objection, [but] only if the trial court finds that the probative value of the information in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert’s opinion substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect
Trial Judge’s role
(expert testimony)
The trial court must decide whether the data is of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.
Expert Opinion Testimony & The Confrontation Clause
A potential Confrontation Clause violation exists when if a jury accepts testimonial hearsay - presented under Rule 703 (Judge allows because its probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert’s opinion substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect) or by listening to the expert’s opinion testimony based on inadmissible hearsay
Inadmissible facts upon which an expert relied may be disclosed to the jury, not for their truth but to assist the jury to evaluate the expert’s opinion.
Expert Testimony
FRE allows an expert to base his opinion on facts that are inadmissible in evidence, if they are of the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field to form opinions on the subject matter. The expert can then testify as to his opinion. But the hearsay statement itself is inadmissible unless 1) it is excluded non-hearsay or expected from the rule against hearsay or 2) its probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert’s opinion substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.
Defendant is on trial for robbing a bank and shooting a bank customer in the process. After being shot, the bank customer gasped, “I can’t believe my wonderful life is ending in the lobby of Wells Fargone, and that it was my old friend Blanche who did it.”
The customer made a full recovery and decided to live the rest of her wonderful life on a far-off foreign island, where she can’t be reached.
Is her statement admissible against the defendant at trial under the dying declaration exception to the rule against hearsay?
No, WHY?
Because it does not qualify under the dying declaration exception to the rule against hearsay because this exception only applies in a homicide prosecution or civil case.
The customer is unavailable due to being absent beyond the reach of the court’s subpoena, and we are told she’s unable to be reached. Her statement was made about the cause of her impending death while she believed she was dying.
However——under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the dying declaration exception only applies in a homicide prosecution or civil case, not in this case for robbery.
