Relevance Flashcards
Rule 401
Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.
Probative + materiality - brick in a wall - need not prove anything conclusively, can just help make a fact more or less probable
Rule 402
Relevant evidence is admissible unless it goes against constitution, federal statute, rules of evidence
Irrelevant evidence not permissible
United States v. James
James’ daughter shot and killed Ogden to death after altercation, James charged with aiding and abetting. Testified that Ogden had told her stories of previous violent acts - therefore, her actions here were self defense
i. Trial court allowed her to testify to those acts but not bring in extrinsic evidence (prior court documents) to prove. Reasoned that her state of mind didn’t have knowledge of those documents at the time
ii. 9th Circuit reversed saying court records were probative and should have been admitted as they direct corroborate credibility of James’ fear
Knapp v. State
Knapp charged with murder, claiming self defense - said he heard the victim had clubbed a man to death. Prosecution wants to admit evidence that man he supposedly clubbed to death died of senilism
i. Trial court properly admitted evidence of actual cause of death. Made the fact that defendant actually heard of clubbing less likely (because it never happened) and therefore probative to actually needing self-defense
Rule 104(b)
When the relevance of evidence depends on whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist (conditional relevance)
i. Just have to show that jury could reasonably find the conditional fact by a preponderance of the evidence (50.1%) (Huddleston standard - can bootstrap)
Cox v. State
D charged with shooting V in his home through a window. Prosecution’s theory was that D retaliated against V after V filed charges against D’s friend (Hammer) for child molestation
i. Police officer testified that four days before murder, he testified at a bond reduction for Hammer. Hammer’s mother testified at the hearing, and Hammer’s bond reduction was denied. TC allowed this evidence because D was likely to know about the bond reduction if Hammer’s mother had known
ii. Sufficient evidence that D spent a lot of time with Hammer’s mother so it passes the Huddleston standard that a jury could reasonably connect the dots that she told him
Rule 105
Limiting instruction
Note that limiting instructions do not always achieve their intended result: can’t unhear things
Rule 403
Is probative value substantially outweighed by:
i. Unfair prejudice
ii. Confusing the issues
iii. Misleading the jury
iv. Undue delay
v. Wasting time
vi. Needlessly presenting cumulative evidence
Look for possibility of other means of proof
State v. Bocharski
D charged with stabbing V to death. 6 photographs of V’s dead body were shown at trial over objection
i. Appellate court found that two of the photos showed little/no probative value and were prejudicial given other photos - can parse and allow some in (OJ)
ii. While relevant under 401, not probative enough under 403
iii. But did not overturn because jurors did not seem affected. Even chose felony murder over premeditated
Commonwealth v. James
State wants to admit CGI simulation of murder based on expert’s evaluation of the physical evidence
i. Court allowed it in after 403 analysis with limiting instruction saying garbage in - garbage out.
ii. Appellate court affirmed saying that limiting instruction was safeguard enough. Also looked at relative monetary disparity between parties but did not find it enough
Types of 403 prejudice
i. Emotional impact on jury
ii. Prior bad acts that may lead to judgment of witness
iii. Disparity in resources
iv. Effectiveness of limiting instructions
v. Availability of other sources of proof
United States v. Driver
Don’t want court to admit controversial facts that would cause a jury to convict simply because defendant is a bad person. Here was being investigated for child abuse
Old Chief v. United States
Defendant charged with felony in possession of handgun. Prosecution says prior conviction during trial even though defendant attempts to stipulate to the severity of charge without actually naming it.
i. Plaintiff has right to narrative relevance - can present their case the way they want to. Jurors expect a certain presentation of proof - can’t just stipulate everything
ii. However, here, it goes too far. The prejudicial value or naming the exact crime (similarity to the one at hand) will cause jury to convict simply because they are a bad person
Rule 201
Adjudicative facts (facts of the particular case that normally go to the jury) maybe judicially noticed if they:
(1) are generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or
(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned
May take notice at any point in the trial
In a civil case, the court must instruct the jury to accept the noticed fact as conclusive. In a criminal case, the court must instruct the jury that it may or may not accept the noticed fact as conclusive.
Carley v. Wheeled Coach
P sued ambulance manufacturer after rollover. D claimed that the government (contractor) knew the same amount of safety information as D did. Trial court took judicial notice of the fact that government conducts tests and the high center of gravity of the trucks. Trial court then found for D because they didn’t know more than the government.
i. Appellate court said invalid judicial notice. Quantity and nature of government tests are not common knowledge, not readily provable through a source whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned – not reasonably undisputed. The facts of testing and knowledge of high center of gravity were in dispute.
