Evidence Final Outline PDF

Evidence can be ***tangible*** or ***testimonial*** - - - - - - - - - - **[Relevance]** FRE Rules 401, 402, 403 govern relevance FRE 401: Test for relevant evidence, Evidence is relevant if: - - - FRE 402 (General admissibility of evidence) - - - -...

Evidence can be ***tangible*** or ***testimonial*** - - - - - - - - - - **[Relevance]** FRE Rules 401, 402, 403 govern relevance FRE 401: Test for relevant evidence, Evidence is relevant if: - - - FRE 402 (General admissibility of evidence) - - - - - - FRE 403 (Excluding relevant evidence for prejudice, confusion, waste of time, or other reasons) - - - - - - - - - **Exceptions to admit evidence through relevance (Special rules under relevance) this is to prove relevance** \*Propensity as well\* CHAMPIONS and DISVOW (both exceptions for admission) (disvow only allowed in criminal cases) **C**haracter- evidence of a persons character **H**abit - **A**fter (susbequent precautions) - - **M**edical expenses - **P**lea (guilty plea) - **I**nsurance - - **O**ffers to settle (or compromise) - **N**o/**N**umerous prior similar happenings - Sex offenses - - - - - - - **[Limiting Instructions]** - **[Motion in Limine]** - **[Authentification]** - - - - **[Character Evidence]** EXAM TIP: pay close attention to whether the case is ***civil*** or ***criminal*** FRE Rule 404(a) 1. a. 2. b. c. i. d. FRE Rule 404(b): Crimes, Wrong Acts, or Other Acts 1. 2. These Methods of Proving Character Below Come from **FRE Rule 405:** a. b. Breakdown FRE Rules applicable to ***Character Evidence***: - - - - - **Rule of Propensity**- one may not prove that a person acted in a certain way because he has a natural tendency to do so - Character Evidence normally not allowed but under DISVOW and KIPPOMIA it is (exceptions) DIVOW (only criminal cases) (404)(a) **D**efendant offers evidence himself (oh yeah I am a violent person) **I**ssue- when character is an issue in a case - - - **S**ex Crimes - - **V**ictim - **O**ther crimes/wrongs/acts - **W**itness- character evidence may be used to show the witnesses credibility or honesty KIPPOMIA **[Habit]** Habit is a ***regular practice*** of meeting a particular kind of situation with a certain type of ***conduct, or a reflex behavior in a specific set of circumstances*** FRE Rule 406: Habit; Routine Practice - **[Similar Happenings]** - - - **C:** Adams v. Toyota - - **C:** Phillips v. Century LLC (Lack of Similar Happenings) - - **[Subsequent Remedial Measures]** FRE Rule 407 Steps taken *after* an accident, to make it *less* *likely* of reoccurrence, are *not* *admissible*. - - **C:** Tuer v. Mcdonald - - - - **Guilty Pleas** - - **Offers to Pay Medical Expenses** - - **Hypo:** P and D get in a car accident. At trial, P wants to testify that as P was being wheeled into an ambulance on a stretcher, D shouted "I'm so sorry, it's all my fault! I'm going to pay for your medical bills, I promise!" Is P saying I'm going to pay for your medical bills, I promise!" admissible to prove liability? **Answer:** No. This is considered a promise to pay the medical expenses. The statement of "I'm going to pay all of your medical expenses is not admissible. Offers in Compromise - - **C:** Davidson v. Prince - - - - **Insurance** - - - - **[Sex Offenses]** FRE Rule 412: Rape Shield Law - - - - - - - - - - - - - FRE Rules *413* and *414*: The *Defendant* in a *Criminal* Case - - **C:** ***[Olden v. Kentucky (1988)]*** **[Facts:]** Olden and friend Harris were indicted for kidnapping, rape, and forced sodomy. Evidence of current cohabitation that could be damaging for relationship. **[Holding]:** A defendant charged with sexual assault is permitted, within reasonable limits that avoid undue prejudice to the complainant, to cross-examine the complainant about a motive to lie about the alleged assault. o Confrontation clause (the right to confront your accuser) must be allowed to show witness bias. o Speculation as to the effect of juror's racial biases cannot justify exclusion of cross-examination with such strong potential to demonstrate the falsity of Matthews' testimony. FRE Rule 415: Similar Acts in *Civil* Cases - **C:** ***[Johnson v. Elk Lake School District (2002)]*** **[Facts:]** Victim claims her guidance counselor sexually harassed and abused her while she was a high school student. Victim tried to introduce **evidence** of incident between ∆ and another teacher to show his propensity for sexual abuse. Whether the other incident was intentional is unclear. **[Issue]**: whether the plaintiff's testimony of previous incident between ∆ and other teacher was admissible to show propensity of sexual abuse. **[Holding]**: INADMISSIBLE. Even if the incident between ∆ and other teacher did satisfy the definition of 'sexual assault,' its prejudicial value outweighs its probative value. It still cannot survive FRE 403 balancing. (Also conditions of acts were totally different). - Best Evidence **Original Documents** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - **C:** Meyers v. US - - - - - Judicial Notice - - - - - - FRE 201- Judicial notice is a legal doctrine wherevy the courts accept certain matters as true without the requirement of formal evidence to prove the fact (again only adjuticative facts) - - - Taking Notice - - - - - - \*\*IMPORT CRIMINAL CASE NOTE\*\* In a criminal case, the judge **[cannot]** instruct a jury **[to accept a judicially noticed fact]** as **[conclusive]** C: Fielding v. State - - Examination of a Witness FRE 611 (Mode and Order of Examining a Witness - - - - Methods of Impeachment (CRIBCAPP) Method \#1 **[Contradiction]** - - - - - - - - - **So, when is something collateral in terms of contradiction?** - **C:** [State v. Oswalt] - - - [**Professor Griffin's Example**:] Allen testifies for P that as he was exiting McDonald's after going through the drive-through and getting his order of an Egg McMuffin, he observed a red car go through the stop sign and hit a blue car. - - - - - Method \#2 **[Bias (]**CRI**B**CAPP) - - - **C**: [US v. Abel] - - - **Example:** Wendy the witness testified that the light was red when D entered the intersection. On cross-examination, based on P's good faith belief, P asks Wendy whether she harbors negative feelings against D. That question is proper impeachment. If Wendy denies having negative feelings about D, counsel for D may call a witness who observed a fight between Wendy and D. The extrinsic evidence of the fight offered by another witness is permissible to demonstrate bias. Character for Dishonesty Method \#3 Reputation and Opinion (C**R**IBCAPP) - - - - - - Method \#4 Specific Instances (Acts/Prior Bad Acts) (CRIBC**A**PP) - - - - **C:** [Michaelson v. US] - - - Method \#5 Criminal Convictions (CRIB**C**APP) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - **I**nconsistent statements (prior inconsistent statements) - - - **A**cts (Prior Bad Acts) - - - - **P**sychiatric - - Perception - - **Important to remember:** **All impeachment measures (CRIBCAPP) are subject to exclusion under the 403 balancing test if their probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence** **The Hearsay Rule** **[What is Hearsay?]** **Elements: (1) a [statement] (2) made [out of court] (3) offered for the [truth of the matter asserted].** - - - - - **[What is NOT Hearsay: KISS SMAC]** **[KISSED (Not hearsay because not offered for truth)]** **K-Knowledge -- offered to show the declarant had knowledge of something.** - **I-Independent Legal Significance -- (1) word gives meaning to a legal event/gives clarity to legal conduct (2) made contemporaneously with the event.** - **S-State of Mind of Speaker** - **S-State of Mind of Hearer -- used to show the person hearing the statement had a certain state of mind/belief -- think fear, duress, trust, etc.** - **[SMAC (Not hearsay because not an assertion)]** **S-Silence** - **M-Machines** image **A-Animals Machines and Animals can't make statements. E.g., a dog wagging its tail, or a phone ringing wouldn't be hearsay.** **C-Conduct- non-verbal, non-assertive verbal acts** - **Offered for TOMA Example: Ari is at a basketball game with his son, Jonah. While waiting in the concession line, Eric taps Ari on his shoulder and says to Ari, "that guy over there is kidnapping your son" and points to Vince. Ari then runs at and tackles Vince, breaking Vince's nose on the tackle. It turns out that Jonah was back at his seat with Ari's wife the whole time. Vince later sues Ari for assault and battery relating to the incident. At trial, Ari wants to testify that Eric told Ari, "That guy over there is kidnapping your son" and Vince's attorney objects as to hearsay. Is this hearsay?** **Analysis:** - - - - **[Non-Hearsay Cases Illustrations: ]** 1. 2. 3. 4. Exceptions to Hearsay (ICES) Under FRE 801(d), certain out of court ("OOC") statements are not hearsay when offered for the truth of the matter asserted. - 1. 2. **[ICES:]** - - - - FRE 801(d)(1): A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay ("we use the term exemption"): - The declarant testifies and ***is subject to cross-examination*** about a prior statement, and the statement: \(A) is inconsistent with the declarant's testimony and **[was given under penalty of perjury]** at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition; \(B) is consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered: \(C) identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier. **Note**: 801(d)(1) only requires that **prior inconsistent statements** were made under oath/sworn. So, prior **consistent statements** and **earlier identification** do not need to have been made under oath. **[Admissions (Statement by a party offered against that party)]** B. C. - D. - - - - - - - - - C. [**Confrontation Clause -** 6th Amendment - right to be confronted with witnesses against you. ] - - 1. 2. 3. 4. - - - - - - **[Hearsay Exceptions (Part 1) ]** FRE 803- The following are **[not excluded]** by the rule against hearsay, **[regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness]** (i.e., these statements *are* hearsay, but they are admissible anyway, whether or not the declarant is available at trial): 1. - 1. 2. 3. 4. Case illustration: - - - Example: 1. - 1. 2. 3. 4. Case illustration: - - Example(s): a. b. - Examples: a. b. c. d. e. Case(s): - - - - - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rll0TGy2PLG9hINwgwFRJ32fqRHQVCbOxByoshXS58Y/edit?usp=sharin [Baker v. State] MD 1977 Facts - - - - Issue- whether the judge erred in refusing the evidence of the report because witness had not written it Rules - - - - - - - - - Holding- it is quite clear in this case the appropriate effort of the appellant to jog the memory of the police witness on a vital issue and was unduly restricted Disposition- reversed [Adams v. NY Railroad] 1961 Facts - - - - - - - - - - - - Evidence not admitted US v. Vigneau 1999 Facts - - - - - - - Issue- Whether ***D's name, address and phone number on these forms were inadmissible hearsay used to identify D as the sender*** Rule- Under *Johnson v. Lutz*, 253 N.Y. 124 (1930), the business records exception does not apply to statements within a business record that are made by an individual who is not a part of the business. Holding- In this case, whoever wrote Vigneau's name on the Western Union form (even if it was in fact Vigneau) was not a part of Western Union's business. ***And because the sender's identity was not verified, the information is not trustworthy because it theoretically could have been anyone who wrote Vigneau's name on the form.*** The Western Union form itself is admissible as a business record, but not in its entirety. The parts of the form with Vigneau's unverified personal information should have been redacted [Williams v. Alexander] NY 1955 Facts - - - - - Issue- Whether the statement was made in the regular course of business Rule- Section 374 of Civil Practice Act: Permitted is any writing or record made as a memo or record of any act, transaction, occurrence, or event if the trial judge shall find it was made in the regular course of any business Holding- It follows that any narration of the accident causing the injury- not relevant tot he diagnosis or treatment, is not admissible under section 374. Whether the D's car was hit and propelled him into the P cannot possibly bear on diagnosis or aid in determining treatment Disposition- Judgment of Appellate Division Reversed [Palmer v. Hoffman] 1943 Facts - - - - - Issue- Whether the evidence was properly ruled as inadmissible and whether the record qualified as a record made in the "regular course of business" of the railroad company Holding- An accident report may affect the business in the sense that it affords information on which the management may act. It is not, however, typical of entries made systematically or as a matter of routine to record events or occurrences, to reflect transactions with others or to provide internal controls. - Disposition- Affirmed [Sana v. Hawaiin Cruises] 1999 Facts - - - - - - Issue Hearsay issues - - - - Holding - - - - - - - - - Disposition- Refusal of evidence was abuse of discretion, new trial awarded [Beech Aircraft Corp v. Rainey] 1988 Facts - - - - - - - - - Issues on Appeal - - Rules 1. a. 2. Holdings 1. a. 2. Dispositions 1. 2. [US v. Robinson] 2018 Facts - - - - - - [State v. Williams] 1872 Facts - - - - Rule- Whenever the opinion of a witness is the direct result of observation through his senses, dying declaration evidence is admitted - Holding- In this case the deceased excludes right as a source of his opinion. A court is not at liberty to conjecture, that he might have heard the D and identified him in that way, especially as there is no suggestion of that sort in the evidence Disposition- Inadmissible [Garza v. Delta Tua Delta Frat] 2006 Facts - - - - - Issue- Whether a suicide note can constitute a dying declaration Rule- Because a suicide note is a planned statement made in anticipation of a controlled act, it is not analogous to a dying declaration mad eunder the belief of impending death by a person with a total lack of controle over the timing and causation of death - - - Holding- Deceased had stated in her note that she had not told her parents about the events recounted in the note for fear they would blame her. Thus, accusations of others contained in the note are tainted with possible motives of self-exoneration. At the time the not was written the declarant was not dying. Disposiiton- Reversed (inadmissible) [R v. Perry] 1909 Facts - Issue- Whether deceased statement was made when her death was imminent Rule- English cases require the speaker to have "a settled expectation of immediate death."the test should be whether the speaker has given up all hope and accepted death as imminent---not the amount of time that lapses. The reasoning is that a man who believes death is imminent would not go to meet his maker "with a lie on his lips." Therefore, the proper test is whether the person has abandoned all hope and believes death will soon follow the statement Holding- Here, the trial judge did not doubt that Agnes had abandoned all hope of life when she told her sister about the abortion. The language of her statement, considered as a whole, shows she made it with a hopeless expectation of death. Therefore, it qualified as an admissible dying declaration Disposition- Perry's appeal dismissed Declarations against Interest [Traveler's Fire Ins. v. Wright] 1958 Facts - - - - - - Issue- Is prior testimony against a defendant in a criminal trial admissible against that party in a civil trial Rule (4 elements): - - - - Holding- he issue they testified to in the criminal trial and the issue sought to be established here is the same: that J.B. willfully burned the property. Therefore, J.B. had the same motive and opportunity to cross examine the witnesses that he and J.C. would have in this case. Thus, there is no harm admitting the former testimony because it was made under oath and subject to cross examination. Although J.C. claims that he did not have an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses because he was not a party to the criminal trial, this claim is immaterial. A partner, even an innocent one, may not recover on a fire insurance claim for partnership property when his partner intentionally burned the property - - Disposition- Reversed [US v. Salerno] SC of US 1992 Facts - - - Issue- May a court admit a witness\'s former testimony under the former-testimony exception to the hearsay rule if the exception\'s similar-motive requirement is not satisfied Rule- A court may not admit a witness\'s former testimony under the former-testimony exception to the hearsay rule if the exception\'s similar-motive requirement is not satisfied Holding- A court may not create an exception to the Federal Rules of Evidence absent a legislative intent to do so. Nothing in the language of Rule 804(b)(1) suggests that any of the requirements disappear under certain circumstances or for certain litigants Disposition- Appellate court reversed Hypos page 352 quiz answers Hearsay 2