Similar Acts Flashcards
At about the same time, defendant Garnosio helped a group to release minks penned on a mink farm. One of the participants is willing to testify to this act. Defendant Garnosio objects that there was no crime involved, so this act cannot fit under Rule 404(b).
Yes because it need not be a crime, includes any conduct
The government wishes to introduce evidence that the defendants went to a rail yard in St. Louis to study the structure of the ammonia tank cars, and to practice planting the bombs. The defendants object that this is Rule 404(b) evidence for which they were not given pre-trial notice. How should the judge rule?
Depends if Pretrial notice is required or not Generally is
In the criminal case, pursuant to Rule 406, the government offers proof that defendant Ginaris has been involved in three other bombings in the past two years. Defendant Ginaris objects. How should the judge rule?
3 bombings in 2 years doesn’t show habit or routines so doubt it would be in under 406
In the criminal case, pursuant to Rule 406, the government offers proof that defendant has bought large amounts of potassium permanganate on a weekly basis for the year leading up to his purchase of 10 pounds of the substance from Albert Speer. Defendant Garnosio objects. How should the judge rule?
Not admissible. 1) conduct is volitional 2) specific enough, but 3) it may not be a large enough sample size
In the civil case, to show that it was not negligent, AB offers to prove that from the time the threat letters were received, they instituted a practice of special security guards sweeping the AB grounds and buildings for any explosives twice a day. While, in the first months, the guards were required to complete a sheet detailing each sweep, by May of 2008, that practice has been stopped, and no guard can say that they remember doing a sweep on the day of the blasts. Instead, they can testify to the routine. Plaintiffs object that this amounts to conjecture and should not be allowed. How should the judge rule?
Doesn’t seem to be Habit since there is no showing of regularity
A witness from the Illinois Central Railroad is called by the civil plaintiffs to say that after their legal department completed the 2008 contract, it was mailed to the CEO of AB. No one from the Illinois Central Railroad can state that they actually placed the contract in an envelope, addressed the envelope, added postage and placed it in the mails. Instead, the witness, who runs the Illinois Central Railroad’s mailroom, can testify to the routine procedures used whenever any item is to be mailed. AB objects that this amounts to conjecture and should not be allowed. How should the judge rule?
Allowed, evidence of Habit
After the blast, AB puts gates and fences around the railroad siding and has a security guard present at all times to open the gates to let trains in and out. Plaintiffs wish to introduce these facts. AB objects that this violates Rule 407. How should the judge rule? If you were the plaintiffs, what additional facts would you want to show the judge to aid him in ruling in your favor?
Rule 407 doesn’t allow proof of subsequent remedial measures to show Negligence
Say you are introducing to show feasibility of changes
Defense would have to open the door somehow but outside of that probably wont get in
Because of prior ammonia leaks, AB had found an insurer who would cover them in the case of a gas leak harming people on the AB site or in the surrounding community. The civil plaintiffs wish to show that AB carried this insurance, which would cover the injuries received by victims of the chlorine gas cloud. AB objects that this violates Rule 411. To deny that it was in charge of the security at the railroad siding, AB has stated that the railroad siding was in the control of the Illinois Central Railroad. How should the judge rule?
Under Rule 411, evidence of insurance cannot be used to show ownership or control so not allowed
Barbara Notstadd is intensely cross-examined about her testimony concerning the conversation between the three defendants. She finally shouts back at defense counsel that she would never lie because that would be against the rules of her religion. Notstadd is a Wiccan. If the jury hears that, they are likely to discount what she has said. The government objects that under Rule 610, religion can never be the subject of cross-examination. How should the judge rule?
Using religious belief to show that the witness lied using to impeach
Not the subject of cross-examination
ATF agent Gordon Holder meets with defendant Barker shortly after the blast. Holder plays Barker a portion of the electronic surveillance tapes from Whale Watch, which contains incriminating statements by Barker. Holder falsely tells Barker that they have much more evidence incriminating evidence on him and Holder falsely tells Barker that he has the personal assurance of the Assistant United States Attorney on the case that if Barker will cooperate that he will get many benefits. Barker is not under arrest at the time, and makes incriminating statements to Holder. Barker files a motion to suppress these statements that is denied by the judge. Barker then files a motion In Limine requesting that the statements be excluded under Rule 410 as they were made in the context of plea negotiations. How should the judge rule?
410 does not bar the statement
