Q&A Relevance Flashcards
Prosecution of D for the murder of V. D admits killing V, but claims she acted in self-defense. To prove V started the fight, D offers evidence that V had committed numerous acts of violence in the months prior to the killing. D was unaware of these acts when the killing occurred. The prosecution objects on relevance grounds.
- How should the court rule? Why? If you believe the evidence is relevant, set forth the chain of inferences that demonstrates its relevance, and include the generalizations that show how the inferences are linked.
ANSWER:
Prosecution of D for conspiracy to murder a well-known political figure. At trial, the prosecution calls W to testify that a week before the killing, W saw D talking to X, the confessed trigger-person, in a nightclub. D objects on relevance grounds.
- The evidence is relevant. The evidence is offered to show V’s action. A possible chain of reasoning:
EVIDENCE: V committed numerous acts of violence in months before killing.
→ INFERENCE: V was a violent person.
GENERALIZATION: One who commits several acts of violence is more likely a violent person than is a person chosen at random.
→ INFERENCE: V started the fight with D.
GENERALIZATION: One who has a violent character is more likely to start a fight than is a person chosen at random.
→ INFERENCE: D acted in self-defense.
GENERALIZATION: A person who kills another who has attacked her is more likely to have killed in self-defense than is one who kills a person who has not attacked her.
It does not matter that D was unaware of V’s prior violent acts because D does not claim she attacked V out of fear that V was about to attack her. Instead, she claims that V started the fight. The evidence tends to show V’s possible violent character, which tends to support the claim that V attacked D.
(Note that the fact that the evidence is relevant in this case does not mean it is admissible. In fact, this evidence probably violates FRE 405, which restricts the types of character evidence that may be used on direct examination even when character evidence is admissible.)
Prosecution of D for conspiracy to murder a well-known political figure. At trial, the prosecution calls W to testify that a week before the killing, W saw D talking to X, the confessed trigger-person, in a nightclub. D objects on relevance grounds.
- How should the court rule? Why? If you believe the evidence is relevant, set forth the chain of inferences that demonstrates its relevance, and include the generalizations that show how the inferences are linked.
- The evidence is relevant. Relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make more or less likely the truth of any proposition of consequence to the action (FRE 401). This evidence is relevant because it shows D’s possible involvement in the crime. A possible chain of reasoning:
EVIDENCE: D spoke with the killer.
→ INFERENCE: D knew the killer.
GENERALIZATION: A person who speaks with another person is more likely to know that other person than is a person chosen at random.
→ INFERENCE: D knew what the killer was about to do.
GENERALIZATION: One who knows another person is more likely to know about that person’s impending acts than is one chosen at random.
→ CONCLUSION: D was involved in the killing.
GENERALIZATION: One who knows about another’s future acts is more likely to be involved in those acts than is a person chosen at random.
Prosecution of D for burglary. D claims she never left home on the day the crime took place. To prove she was home all day, D testifies that she reads her horoscope every morning in order to help her decide what to do that day, and that on the day in question her horoscope said that she should not “undertake any risky endeavors.” The prosecution objects on relevance grounds.
- How should the court rule? Why? If you believe the evidence is relevant, set forth the chain of inferences that demonstrates its relevance, and include the generalizations that show how the inferences are linked.
- The evidence is relevant. It shows D’s actions, even if D’s beliefs are silly. A possible chain of reasoning:
EVIDENCE: D believed in astrology, and D’s horoscope for the day of the crime warned D not to do anything risky.
→ INFERENCE: D read her horoscope that day.
GENERALIZATION: One who believes in astrology is more likely to read her horoscope daily than is one chosen at random.
→ INFERENCE: D believed her horoscope.
GENERALIZATION: One who believes in astrology is more likely to believe in the truth of a horoscope’s prediction than is one chosen at random.
→ CONCLUSION: D stayed home that day.
GENERALIZATION: One who believes in astrology is more likely to act consistently with her horoscope than is one chosen at random.
The horoscope need not be a valid predictor of what would happen to D if she undertakes a “risky endeavor.” All that matters is that D believed the horoscope was accurate, making it somewhat more likely than it would be without the evidence that D stayed home that day and thus did not commit the crime).
(Note that the evidence here probably violates the best evidence rule (FRE 1002) because it constitutes testimony about the contents of a writing. The best evidence rule requires that the writing itself be produced to prove its contents. None of the exceptions to that rule appear to apply here.)
Civil rights action by P against D police department for using excessive force in arresting P at P’s home. The officers went to P’s home to execute an arrest warrant resulting from P’s failure to pay fifty parking tickets. It is undisputed that as soon as P opened her front door, the officers grabbed P and beat her with their night sticks until she lost consciousness. D claims its officers acted in the reasonable belief that such force was necessary. To prove this, D wishes to offer evidence that on two occasions not long before this [16/17]incident, P had acted violently when confronted with police officers. The two officers involved in this incident were not aware of these previous confrontations. P objects on relevance grounds.
- How should the court rule? Why? If you believe the evidence is relevant, set forth the chain of inferences that demonstrates its relevance, and include the generalizations that show how the inferences are linked.
- The evidence is not relevant. D claims that the officers reasonably believed that D would act violently. The only basis for such a conclusion revealed by the facts is that P had acted violently when confronted with the police on two prior occasions. If the officers were unaware of these acts of violence, the acts could not have formed the basis of a belief that force was necessary.
Prosecution of D for the murder of V, D’s ex-wife. D denies involvement. To prove that D committed the crime, the prosecution wishes to call W, a friend of D’s, to testify that a few days after the killing occurred, D told W, “I dreamed last night that I killed V.” D objects on relevance grounds.
- How should the court rule? If you believe the evidence is relevant, set forth the chain of inferences that demonstrates its relevance, and include the generalizations that show how the inferences are linked.
31.The answer is unclear. Whether the evidence is relevant depends on the validity of the generalization that one’s unconscious thoughts bear some relation to one’s actual behavior. If relevant, the reasoning would be as follows:
EVIDENCE: A few days after the murder, D told a friend that he had just dreamed that he killed V.
→ INFERENCE: D believed that he killed V.
GENERALIZATION: One who dreams of having done something is more likely actually to have believed he acted in that way than is a person who has not had such a dream.
→ CONCLUSION: D killed V.
GENERALIZATION: One who believes he acted in a certain way is more likely actually to have acted in that way than is one who does not harbor that belief.
(Note: If faced with a relevance challenge in this case, an interesting question is whether the court should rely on its own knowledge about the nature of dreams, or should instead insist that the party offering the evidence (here, the prosecution) call an expert witness to testify that there is a relationship between unconscious thoughts and waking action. Some judges might not feel qualified to make that judgment without the assistance of expert opinion.)
Prosecution of D for the murder of V in V’s home. D claims she was on vacation in another state when the crime took place. To prove that D could have been in V’s home at the time of the murder, the prosecution wishes to offer evidence that D was a federal inmate on work-release who worked for V as a housekeeper.
- Which of the following statements is most accurate?
(A) The evidence is relevant and because it goes to a central issue in the case, its probative value cannot be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
(B) The evidence concerning D’s job as a housekeeper is relevant but her status as an inmate on work-release is not. Because the probative value of that aspect of the evidence is zero, the court must not allow the jury to hear that D was an inmate on work-release.
(C) The evidence is relevant, but if the court finds that the probative value of any part of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, the court may exclude that part.
(D) The evidence is irrelevant.
- Answer (C) is correct. The evidence is relevant because if D was a housekeeper for V, D had some connection with V that might have placed D in V’s home. (In more technical language, this evidence gives rise to the inference that D had opportunity to commit the crime.) FRE 403, however, allows the court to exclude “relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of … unfair prejudice. …” Prejudice here comes from the reason D had opportunity: her status as an inmate on work release. Hearing that D was an inmate might lead the jury to punish D for her prior crimes rather than for what she might have done on this occasion. Alternatively, the jury might consider the evidence of D’s inmate status for the wrong reason: that one who has committed a crime is more likely to have committed the charged crime. As we will learn, this inference is forbidden by the rules of evidence. The issue is whether, in this instance, the danger of unfair prejudice is so great as to substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence. That is a close question. A court might find that all the jury really needs to know is that D was a housekeeper, not that she held that job as part of a prison work-release program. Answer (C) states the issue that way.
Answer (A) is incorrect because the centrality of a factual issue to a case does not per se mean that no evidence offered to prove that fact can be too prejudicial. The balancing must be done on a case-by-case basis.
Answer (B) is incorrect because D’s status as an inmate on work-release is relevant to rebut D’s defense that she was on vacation in another state at the time of the crime. It is highly unlikely that an inmate on work-release would be allowed to take such distant vacations.
Answer (D) is incorrect because the evidence is relevant.
Prosecution of D for first degree murder of V. D admits shooting V but claims she acted in self-defense when V attacked her. At trial, the prosecution calls W, a forensic pathologist who conducted the autopsy on V. W testifies that she found three entry wounds on the back of V’s head. The prosecution then shows W a series of photographs, which W states were taken of V’s upper body and head during the autopsy. The photographs clearly show the bullet wounds to the back of V’s head that W had testified about. The prosecution offers the photographs into evidence. D objects.
- Which of the following statements is most likely correct?
(A) Because the photographs are cumulative, they are irrelevant and must be excluded.
(B) Although the photographs are relevant, the fact that they merely corroborate W’s testimony deprives them of all but minimal probative value, and they must be excluded.
[17/18]
(C) Although the photographs are relevant, the court may exclude them if it finds that they are less reliable evidence of the condition of V’s body than is W’s oral testimony.
(D) Although the photographs are relevant, the court may exclude them if it finds that their probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that the jury will convict D for the wrong reasons.
- Answer (D) is correct. The photographs are relevant because they make it somewhat more likely than it would be without the evidence that V was retreating when shot. The court may exclude the photographs if it finds that their probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or other dangers mentioned in FRE 403. Among those is “needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” The evidence here is cumulative in the sense that it corroborates oral testimony. But the court is unlikely to find them “needlessly cumulative” because they add something to the oral story: they show the jury what the witness was talking about, making it easier to understand the oral testimony. The jurors might also be able to judge whether the witness accurately described the condition of the head. There is also the risk of unfair prejudice if the jury might react emotionally rather than logically to the evidence, and the court should weigh this danger as well. On balance, the court is likely to admit the evidence.
Answer (A) is incorrect because cumulative evidence is relevant.
Answer (B) is incorrect because, as explained above, the probative value of the photographs might be great depending on the circumstances. On the facts given, we cannot judge them to have minimal probative value.
Answer (C) is incorrect because the judge should not be determining the reliability of the evidence. Reliability is a matter to be determined by the trier of fact. The judge should be deciding the probative value of the evidence if the jury decides it is reliable.
Wrongful death action by P against D arising from a horrible head-on automobile collision that killed P’s deceased. To prove that D was traveling considerably above the speed limit of 25 miles per hour at the time of the crash, P wishes to offer into evidence several photographs taken at the scene. The photographs show P’s mangled car, reduced to half its original size. Blood stains can be seen through the windshield. D offers to stipulate that she was traveling at least 60 miles per hour, and asks the court to exclude the photographs. P refuses to accept D’s stipulation and insists on offering the photographs.
- How should the court rule?
(A) Because the photographs would provide the jury with a greater understanding of the accident, the court should deny D’s motion and allow P to offer the photographs.
(B) Because D’s stipulation would give P everything the photographs would have shown, the court should grant D’s motion and exclude the photographs.
(C) Because a party may prove its case with any otherwise admissible evidence, and may never be forced to accept a stipulation, the court should deny D’s motion and allow P to offer the photographs into evidence.
(D) Because trial courts generally exclude gory photographs, which tend to invite unfair prejudice by inflaming the jury’s passions against the opponent, the court would exclude them even without D’s offered stipulation.
- Answer (A) is correct. In Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997), the Supreme Court adopted a very narrow exception to the general principal that a party may prove her [162/163]case with any otherwise admissible evidence, and may not be forced to accept a stipulation. The exception applied where the issue on which the disputed evidence would have been offered - defendant’s status as a felon within the meaning of a statute - was an issue that could not benefit from any “evidentiary richness.” D either was or was not a felon within the meaning of that statute, and D essentially offered to stipulate that he was. In this situation, D’s offer to stipulate to his speed prior to the crash does tend to establish that he was going considerably in excess of the speed limit, but it does not demonstrate the catastrophic effect of his actions as well as the photographs.
Answer (B) is incorrect because, as explained above, the stipulation would not give P everything that the photographs would have shown.
Answer (C) is incorrect because, as explained above, there are very limited situations in which the general principal does not apply.
Answer (D) is incorrect because the opposite is true: Courts usually admit gory photographs because they generally hold that their probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Action by P, who was struck in a crosswalk by driver D. P wishes to offer evidence that D is a wealthy person.
- Which of the following statements is most likely correct?
(A) The evidence might be relevant if P’s action is brought on an intentional tort theory and P seeks punitive damages.
(B) Because a wealthy person is not likely to be concerned about the potential financial impact of a tort judgment against her, the evidence is relevant if P’s action is brought on a negligence theory.
(C) Regardless of the substantive theory supporting P’s action, the evidence is relevant.
(D) Regardless of the substantive theory supporting P’s action, the evidence is irrelevant.
- Answer (A) is correct. A person’s wealth is relevant to the amount of punitive damages that should be awarded because the amount of money it takes to “punish” a person depends in part on the person’s wealth. A punitive damage award of $1000 might be significant to a poor defendant, but would likely mean little to a wealthy person.
Answer (B) is incorrect because it relies on a faulty generalization: that a wealthy person is likely to be careless because she will not be concerned about the financial impact of a tort judgment. That generalization is almost certainly wrong.
Answer (C) is incorrect because wealth will not be relevant to all substantive theories of recovery. For example, punitive damages are not awardable in negligence cases, and because all persons are judged according to the same standard (reasonable care under the circumstances), the wealth of a person is irrelevant to the question of reasonable care.
Answer (D) is incorrect because, as explained above, wealth is relevant to the possible award of punitive damages in an intentional tort case.
Prosecution of D for being a felon in possession of a firearm and for assault with a deadly weapon. Prior to trial, D offers to stipulate that he is in fact a “felon” as defined in the applicable statute. In return, he asks the court to order the prosecution not to offer evidence that D’s prior felony conviction was for assault with a deadly weapon. The prosecutor refuses to accept D’s offered stipulation on the ground that the prosecution is entitled to offer evidence to prove each element of the crimes.
- Of the following, which constitutes D’s strongest response?
(A) The prosecution is required to accept any factual stipulation offered by a criminal defendant.
[18/19]
(B) Because D’s stipulation gives the prosecution everything it can prove legitimately, any additional evidence has no marginal effect on the probability of D’s guilt and poses a substantial risk of unfair prejudice.
(C) D’s stipulation renders any evidence of his felon status irrelevant.
(D) D has a due process right to limit the amount of prejudicial evidence offered by the prosecution.
- Answer (B) is correct. The facts of this hypothetical closely track those of Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997). The only value of D’s status is to show that D qualifies as a “felon” under the statute. There is no “story-telling” value to more information (such as the nature of the prior conviction) because that information does not help the jury understand what happened in the present case. Under these very limited circumstances, the general rule that a party may use any otherwise admissible evidence to prove its case does not apply. Thus, the court may require the prosecution to accept the stipulation D has offered.
Answer (A) is incorrect because, though it is normally true that a party need not accept an opponent’s offered stipulation, that is not the case in the rare instance where the stipulation truly gives the party everything it would be entitled to get by the evidence it wishes to offer.
Answer (C) is incorrect because, under FRE 401, evidence offered to prove an undisputed fact is relevant as long as it meets the basic definition in the rule. (In that sense, the rule differs from that of a few states including California, which provide that evidence offered to prove undisputed facts is not relevant. See Cal. Evid. Code § 210.)
[163/164]
Answer (D) is incorrect because a due process argument cannot be made in such a generalized way. The court must examine each piece of evidence and determine whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. It is true, however, that the probative value of an item of evidence should be measured in light of other evidence in the case. See Old Chief.
Prosecution of D for bank robbery. The bank is next door to a multiplex movie theater. Prosecution witness W has testified that she was standing in line to buy tickets for the movie “Bar Wars: Episode 2” when she saw D emerging from the bank with a gun in one hand and a large sack in the other. On cross-examination D wishes to ask W if it isn’t true that W was standing in line to buy tickets to “Bar Wars: Episode 3,” not Episode 2. The prosecution objects on relevance grounds.
- Discuss whether the evidence is relevant.
- Under FRE 401, evidence is relevant if it advances or impedes to any degree the likelihood of a fact of consequence to the case being true. This is an extremely lenient standard. Here, D wishes to show that W, perhaps because of a faulty memory, was wrong about the movie for which she was buying tickets. D wants to raise the possibility that if W was wrong about this fact, she might also have a faulty memory as to the identity of the person she saw emerging from the bank. Of course, that her memory is faulty concerning a trivial detail (the name of the movie) does not say much about whether she might have a faulty memory about something more striking, but the relevance rule is extremely easy to satisfy. If the evidence is to be excluded, it will have to be based on another rule. (As it happens, this evidence is probably admissible.)
Prosecution of D for murder. D denies committing the crime. The prosecution calls an eyewitness who describes the killer as a “white male with blond hair.” The prosecution then calls a police officer who testifies that she collected blood samples from the scene. The prosecutor then calls an expert who testifies that she conducted DNA tests on the blood samples, separated the victim’s blood from blood assumed to be from the perpetrator, tested a sample of blood from D, found a “match,” and calculated that only one in 500,000 white men could have produced the sample found at the scene. D does not dispute the validity of the DNA tests, nor does he call his own DNA expert. During final argument, the prosecutor makes the following statement to the jury: “Based on the expert’s testimony, which was uncontradicted, there would only be a one in 500,000 chance that you would be wrong if you convicted D. That is certainly `beyond a reasonable doubt.’”
- Discuss the validity of this argument.
Same case as in the previous question. Assume D offers evidence that over 5 million people live in the metropolitan area in which the crime was committed. During final argument, D’s attorney makes the following statement to the jury: “Based on the expert’s testimony, there are at least ten people in this metropolitan area who could have produced the sample found at the crime scene. That means there is only a one in ten chance you would be correct if you convicted D of the crime. There is more than reasonable doubt of D’s guilt in this case, and so you must acquit.”
- Discuss the validity of this argument.
38/39
- The “prosecutor’s fallacy” as applied here incorrectly asserts that the probability of error is only one in 500,000, which is not what the statistical evidence suggests. The statistics, if accurate, only show that one in 500,000 white men could have produced this sample. They do not distinguish who, among the small number who could have produced the sample, did in fact produce it. The prosecutor has incorrectly correlated the fact that few people could produce the sample with the probability that it was D who produced it. Finally, the prosecutor’s argument encourages the jury to ignore the other evidence in the case that might shed light on D’s guilt or innocence, such as an alibi, or the existence of a motive in another person.
- The “defense counsel’s fallacy” as applied here incorrectly characterizes the nature of the statistical evidence. That evidence does not imply that there is only a one in ten chance D committed the crime. At most, it suggests that only one in ten white males who live in the metropolitan area could have left the blood sample found at the scene; it says nothing about who, among those people, was responsible. For example, some of those who could have produced the sample might have been away from the city at the time the crime was committed. As to those people, there is a zero percent chance of guilt. As with the prosecutor’s argument, D’s argument to the jury over-emphasizes the value of the statistical evidence and encourages the jury to ignore other evidence that might shed light on whether D committed the crime.
Prosecution of D for murder. The prosecution calls the only eyewitness, who describes the perpetrator as a Caucasian male with brown hair. D is a Caucasian male with brown hair. A tissue sample, almost certainly from the perpetrator, was retrieved from under one of the victim’s fingernails. A qualified lab extracts the [19/20]DNA from the sample, compares it to a DNA database containing only Caucasian males, and calculates that the likelihood of a random Caucasian male leaving such a sample is 1 in 500,000.
- Which of the following best describes the usefulness of Bayes’ Theorem in evaluating all of this evidence?
(A) It will help the jury determine whether the eyewitness testimony and the DNA evidence are statistically independent factors.
(B) It will help the court determine whether the lab chose the proper database from which to calculate probabilities.
(C) It will help the jurors calculate the effect of the DNA evidence on the jurors’ prior assessment of the likelihood that D was the perpetrator.
(D) Bayes’ Theorem is not useful in this situation.
- Answer (C) is correct. Bayes’ Theorem is a statistical formula for determining the effect that a new piece of evidence has on a fact-finder’s prior assessment of probability. That theorem is well-suited to a situation in which statistical evidence such as DNA evidence is added to the jury’s assessment of identity based on other evidence in the case. That is what is happening in the hypothetical.
Answers (A), (B), and (D) are incorrect for the reasons stated above.
