Kaplan Pgs 442-447 - General Flashcards
What year were the federal rules of evidence adopted, and what was in place before that?
They were adopted in 1978, and before that the rules of evidence were governed by common law
When do the federal rules of evidence apply?
In all federal civil and criminal cases, including bankruptcy
When do the federal rules of evidence not apply?
– In preliminary determinations of fact by a judge
– grand jury proceedings
– probation and sentencing hearings
– getting a warrant
– bail proceedings
– any proceeding that Congress has exempted from the federal rules of evidence
What are the two circumstances where an evidentiary ruling can be reversed for error?
– If prejudicial error exists (means a substantial right was found), not just a harmless error that would happen if the jury‘s verdict would not have been affected by the trial court’s ruling
– if there was a proper objection or an offer of proof is made
What has to happen for an appellate court to reverse a trial court’s admission or exclusion of evidence?
Specific requirements have to be met. The analysis depends on whether the trial court:
– admitted or excluded evidence, and
– the existence of prejudicial error
What is the difference between the harmless error standard and prejudicial error?
– Harmless error: happens when the jury’s verdict wouldn’t have been affected by the court’s ruling (whether the ruling was right or wrong or had no effect on the outcome of the case)
- Prejudicial error: occurs when a substantial right is found that would affect the outcome of the case
In order for an appellate court to reverse a trial court’s ADMISSION of evidence, what has to happen?
There must’ve been a timely objection or motion to strike that appears on the record, and it must state the specific ground of the objection if it is not apparent from the context.
Timely objection happens as soon as the opposing attorney reasonably knows that valid grounds for the objection exist. If the objection is made after the answer is given, it is usually in the form of a motion to strike with a request for the judge to give a jury instruction to disregard that evidence. Extraordinary circumstances allow the appellate court to reverse even without an objection if the error is obvious and causes a miscarriage of justice
If the objection states the precise legal ground, that is enough to preserve an issue for appeal, but to get a reversal, the specific objection must be valid on the ground stated.
For an appellate court to reverse a trial court’s EXCLUSION of evidence, what has to happen?
An oral or written explanation of the excluded evidence must be made on the record. This offer of proof/proffer must address the relevancy and admissibility of this evidence
Offers of proof are not usually required when the substance of the evidence is apparent from the context.
You can only get a reversal when no valid grounds for the objection existed, so it resulted in prejudicial error, and an offer of proof was made to establish the relevancy of the excluded evidence.
The party that is seeking admission of evidence has the burden to do what?
Establish preliminary facts like competency, qualification of witnesses, unavailability, or privilege… All by a preponderance of the evidence.
When a judge is determining the admissibility of evidence, is he bound by the rules of evidence?
No, so he can do things like rely on affidavits or hearsay statements in order to determine whether evidence is admissible
I.e.: if D is on trial for murdering his wife, and the prosecution wants to introduce evidence that someone else told his friend that he was the father of D’s wife’s new child, technically that falls under an 804 exception to hearsay as long as this other person is unavailable to testify himself. When the judge is determining whether or not the testimony is admissible, the judge is allowed to hear evidence that this guy told his friend he was leaving the country and never coming back, which is itself hearsay, but he’s allowed to consider it to determine whether or not this guy is truly unavailable
If the relevance of a certain piece of evidence depends on a particular finding of fact by the jury, what will the court do?
The court will admit the evidence as long as the judge determines that a reasonable jury could find that necessary fact, and the judge would give instructions to the jury to disregard the evidence if they don’t find that fact
I.e.: if the prosecution wants to admit into evidence a letter that is allegedly written by the defendant that says he killed the victim, if the letter was not written by him it is not relevant to the case. As long as the judge determines that a reasonable jury can find that the defendant wrote the letter, the court will admit the evidence with an instruction to the jury that they should only consider the letter if they find that the defendant did write the letter
Does a trial judge have discretion to excuse the jury when he is determining whether a preliminary fact is admissible or not?
Yes, and he should do this whenever the evidence may have a prejudicial impact
If someone that is accused of a crime decides to testify on a preliminary issue, does he then waive his fifth amendment privilege regarding other issues in the case?
No, he testifies for the limited purpose of addressing the preliminary issue
If evidence is admitted regarding one party for one purpose, but is not admissible to another party or for another purpose, what can the court do?
The court can, upon request, restrict the evidence to its proper scope by instructing the jury through a limiting instruction
What are some examples of times that limiting instructions should be given?
– A prior inconsistent statement may be used just to impeach, but not as substantive evidence
– a statement by one defendant can be admitted as an admission, but inadmissible as hearsay against the other parties when offered for its truth
– character evidence may be offered for a non-character purpose, like for the victim’s reputation for violence in order to show that the defendant had a reasonable belief that self-defence was necessary
