Evidence Outline – Fall 2013
Prof. Daniel J. Capra
Table&of&Contents&
RELEVANCE ................................................................................................................................................................... 3!
FRE 401 & 402 – Def’n of Relevance....................................................................................................................... 3!
FRE 403 – Balancing Test ......................................................................................................................................... 4!
FRE 407 – Subsequent Remedial Measures .............................................................................................................. 6!
FRE 408 – Offers of Compromise & Negotiations (CIVIL) ..................................................................................... 7!
FRE 409 – Offers to Pay Medical Expenses ............................................................................................................. 8!
FRE 410 – Pleas and Plea Discussions (CRIMINAL) .............................................................................................. 8!
FRE 411 – Liability Insurance ................................................................................................................................... 9!
CHARACTER EVIDENCE/PRIOR BAD ACTS ................................................................................................................. 10!
FRE 404(a) – Character Evidence ........................................................................................................................... 10!
FRE 405 – Methods of Proving Character .............................................................................................................. 11!
FRE 404(b) – Crimes, Wrongs or Other Acts ......................................................................................................... 11!
FRE 406 – Habit; Routine Practice ......................................................................................................................... 14!
FRE 412 – Rape Shield............................................................................................................................................ 15!
FRE 413, 414, 415 – Similar Crimes in Sexual Assault & Child Molestation Cases ............................................. 16!
OPINION TESTIMONY................................................................................................................................................... 17!
FRE 701 & 704(a) – Lay Witness Testimony & The Ultimate Issue ...................................................................... 17!
FRE 702 – Expert Witness Testimony & Daubert .................................................................................................. 18!
Daubert Applied to Non-Scientific Testimony ........................................................................................................ 20!
Distinguishing Between Expert and Lay Witnesses ................................................................................................ 21!
FRE 703 & 704 – Qualifications & Subject Matter ................................................................................................ 21!
HEARSAY ...................................................................................................................................................................... 24!
FRE 801 & 802 – Hearsay ....................................................................................................................................... 24!
FRE 801(d)(1) – Prior Statements of Testifying Witness ....................................................................................... 26!
FRE 801(d)(2) – Statements by Party Opponent ..................................................................................................... 26!
FRE 804(a) – Hearsay Exceptions Contingent on Declarant Unavailability .......................................................... 28!
FRE 804(b)(1) – Prior Testimony............................................................................................................................ 28!
FRE 804(b)(2) – Dying Declarations ...................................................................................................................... 29!
FRE 804(b)(3) – Declarations Against Interest ....................................................................................................... 29!
FRE 804(b)(6) – Forfeiture ...................................................................................................................................... 30!
FRE 803(1) – Present Sense Impression ................................................................................................................. 30!
FRE 803(2) – Excited Utterance.............................................................................................................................. 31!
FRE 803(3) – State of Mind .................................................................................................................................... 31!
FRE 803(4) – Statements for Purpose of Treatment or Diagnosis .......................................................................... 32!
FRE 803(5) – Past Recollection Recorded .............................................................................................................. 32!
1
FRE 803(6) & 803(7) – Business Records / Absence Thereof ................................................................................ 33!
FRE 803(8) – Public Records .................................................................................................................................. 34!
FRE 803(16) & 803(18) – Ancient Documents & Learned Treatises ..................................................................... 36!
FRE 807 – The Residual Exception......................................................................................................................... 36!
Confrontation Clause (6th Amendment)................................................................................................................... 37!
Crawford Applied to Hearsay Rules ........................................................................................................................ 38!
WITNESS TREATMENT ................................................................................................................................................. 40!
Witness Basics (Competency, Oaths, Etc.) ............................................................................................................. 40!
Impeachment & Cross-X ......................................................................................................................................... 41!
Modes of Impeachment ........................................................................................................................................... 41!
PRIVILEGES .................................................................................................................................................................. 45!
Privileges: Generally ............................................................................................................................................... 45!
Attorney-Client Privilege......................................................................................................................................... 45!
Exceptions to the Attorney-Client Privilege ............................................................................................................ 48!
Spousal Privilege ..................................................................................................................................................... 49!
Other Privileges ....................................................................................................................................................... 50!
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICITY & BEST EVIDENCE ........................................................................................................ 52!
Document Authenticity ............................................................................................................................................ 52!
CASES ........................................................................................................................................................................... 54!
RULES ........................................................................................................................................................................... 59!
2
RELEVANCE!
General&
-
-
Why do we have Evidence Rules?
o (1) Efficiency: Streamline proceedings.
o (2) Prejudice: Attempts to influence jury in inappropriate way; poison the well
o (3) Privilege (social policy): Can’t put atty on stand & ask if D confessed; would harm atty-client
privilege (discourage clients from seeking out atty)
o (4) Reliability: Distrust of jury competence (particularly in assessing and using only reliable ev.)
FREs do apply in most arbitrations
48 States apply FRE (CA & NY are the exception)
Important:
o FRE 105 – If admissible for one purpose is not admissible for another, the remedy is
admission w/limiting instruction
! Proponent of evidence gets better deal b/c instruction easily forgotten or ignored
! But if proper purpose is a farce, or if admissible purpose so weak and inadmissible so
strong, judge can use discretion not to admit
! Ex: hearsay - D is biggest drug dealer on east coast; admissible for context of
investigation, not for truth
FRE&401&&&402&–&Def’n&of&Relevance&
-
FRE 401
o
-
-
-
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.
Requires that the ev. “tends to prove” that an “issue in dispute” is more or less likely
o Low threshold: only needs to make a little more or less likely
! No degrees of relevance (US v. Foster (D.C.Cir. 1993))
o “In dispute” refers to the substantive law (elements of the charge or defense)
o Failure to introduce evidence can draw negative inference
! US v. Tory (9th Cir. 1995)
Examples
o #1: Stat rape: (ev. of age based on # of candles on cake, age on license, dad says she’s 21, etc.)
! Irrelevant; Most juris, strict liability; therefore issue of age not in dispute
o #2: Leaving scene of accident: (ev. that hit person was blackout drunk; contributed to cause of
accident)
! Irrelevant; Not related to issue of having left scene
FRE 402 – Evidence is admissible unless barred by Constitution, statute, FRE or other SCOTUS rules
o US v. Lowery (11th Cir. 1999)
! Congress passed law mandating local bar rules to apply to lawyers practicing in fed
courts; local bar rule prohibited plea agreements exchanged for cooperation as bribery
! Court: local rule was not an evidentiary exclusion rule so rule did not apply
&
3
FRE&403&–&Balancing&Test&
-
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of
one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay,
wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
-
General: “Most important FRE” – Capra
o Evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
unfair prejudice or undue delay.
o Presumption in favor of admissibility
! Trial court has wide range of discretion
! Review standard: “abuse of discretion”
• Party must make timely objection (plain error rule) to permit review
o Often handled via in limine motions to avoid jury seeing evidence
Unfair Prejudice
o Evidence can be very damaging to D and not be prejudicial (inflame jury beyond probative value)
! Ex: The murder weapon is obviously prejudicial but is proper (also 100% probative)
! Ex: Character ev. that shows D was “bad person” is improper (inflames jury)
o Does not apply in bench trials (judge has to see evidence to make ruling)
! Can’t argue: no judge, you’ll be prejudiced by this
o Less Prejudicial Alternative Rule
! If there is another piece of evidence equally as probative but less prejudicial, judge
must accept the alternative (can include stipulations, see Old Chief, below)
! Torres (5th Cir.)
• Gov’t wants to introduce “Known Criminals” book compiled by PD mad with
mugshot photos in case where border patrol was shot; Gov’t covered prior
convictions list under D’s name; 5th Circuit said still too prejudicial
Stipulations
o If allowing D to stipulate to a fact would diminish prejudice and be exactly as probative, P must
accept stipulation (Old Chief v. US (1997), p. 172)
! Felony gun possession charge required showing prior felony w/1+ year prison term; D
offered to stipulate to prior felony conviction; TC denied
! COURT: TC abused discretion in denial, because there was no threat of disrupting gov’t
narrative of case and other ev. gov’t admitted about the prior conviction was overly
prejudicial
o Stipulation is an offer that can be rejected
o Stipulations can be a Trojan horse
! US v. Colon (2d Cir. 1989), p. 181: Stipulation basically said if you can prove intent, I
admit intent.
! Ex: Child porn; D stipulates that child porn was on computer. But possession is not SL
crime (knowledge required), and certain types are more probative (young children, etc.)
! Ex: Murder case if defense is that it was an accident; Don’t let D stipulate that he shot the
victim to avoid bringing in eyewitness. Account may be probative of intent.
Civil Cases
o (a) Smearing the Victim (esp. in personal injury cases)
! Not OK unless you can find some relevance hook. E.g.:
! (i) Victim was a stoner: unless there’s a contrib. neg issue, not OK. Even if you want to
prove he was bad son, just too prejudicial.
! (ii) Guy remarried quickly in consortium case: wives aren’t fungible, not OK
! (iii) Guy remarried, he’s depressed: OK to introduce remarriage if you want to argue that
the new wife is the real cause of the depression
! (iv) Victim was a dad and had lots of gay porn around: OK if “role model” status is issue
• Perrin – attempted collection by dad for wrongful death when PD shot son
o Admissible for damages in “role model” determination
o (b) Wealth of P
! Might have a proper purpose for damages, otherwise it’s not OK
-
-
-
4
(c) “Day in the Life” Films
! Relevant to damages, but day must be typical or 403 excludes
! Can’t show only bad moments; D must have access to all deleted material; can’t include
emotional music (no dramatization permitted)
o (d) Shady Conduct
! McQueeny v. Wilmington Trust Co. (3d. Cir. 1985), p. 127
• P paying people to lie under oath is admissible. Damaging, but probative of his
belief that his case is weak or he has something to hide.
• High Probative value and Prejudice not unfair
o (e) Plaintiff Causing a Ruckus
! What if plaintiff is in pain at the trial? Not an evidentiary issue: 403 doesn’t apply;
• Judge could exclude him from the courtroom.
Criminal Cases
o (a) Gory Pictures
! OK if relevant to the issues, but can’t be cumulative or excessive
• D might argue “victim is dead” not at issue
• Gov’t can est. relevance (show killed by left-handed killer, depraved
indifference, condition of body shows why lack of forensic ev., etc.)
o shows something about method, motive
! Can’t show excessive number of photos, etc. (judge will limit amount to reduce prej.)
! (i) Terry v. State (TX 1973), p. 156: pics of child injures OK; autopsy pics not (doesn’t
prove anything)
! Must be more than just gross or shocking to exclude:
• Ex: Counsel asked P on stand to take out glass eye. Judge allowed b/c does it
daily. Jury should know what he goes through. No need to sanitize evidence.
o (b) Alternative Perpetrators
! Must be good enough evidence that a reasonable person might conclude that an
alternative perp. did it. Can’t just be speculative.
! (i) US v. McVeigh (10th Cir.1998), p.158: Court excludes McVeigh’s surprisingly
decent alt perp. evidence.
• Capra: shows how “abuse of discretion” doesn’t have teeth.
! (ii) Holmes v. South Carolina (2006), p. 166:
• State SC held that if strong enough ev. of D’s guilt, specifically forensic ev., no
need to introduce ev. of alt perp., even if it would be strong on own and not
prejudicial, b/c doesn’t raise a reasonable inference of D’s innocence
• Violated constitutional right to effective defense
o (c) Printed Material – D’s Kiddy Porn
! Shymanovitz (9 th Cir. 1998), p. 132: (guidance counselor charged w/ sex abuse)
• Court held that gay sexually explicit mags w/ stories about sex w/ children
should have been excluded. Not v. probative b/c plenty of ppl have inclinations;
doesn’t mean they act on them.
• Capra – believes this was wrongly decided
! US v. Curtin (9 th Cir. 2007), p. 136
• Overrules Shymanovitz
• Court allowed stories on PDA about sex w/ children when D charged w/
traveling across state lines to have sex w/ minor b/c corroborated intent (he
argued only wanted to engage in “age play.”)
o D opened door by attempting to downplay material
• Narrow holding: reading material only allowed when directly relevant.
• Dissent: Should draw relevance line btwn fantasy/“how to” stories
o (d) Terrorism
! Courts generally allow in gruesome testimony about terrorist activities
! Al Moayad (on trial for providing material support to Hamas.)
• Ev. of Hamas bombing w/testimony of vic. to show Hamas is a terrorist org
o
-
5
2d Cir: overly prejudicial to allow; perhaps a NYT article discussing attack
would have been sufficient (less prejudicial)
• However, many courts have allowed testimony of this nature
(e) Group Criminality
! Guilty pleas of accomplices never admissible if accomplice is not testifying. Vaguely
probative (not ev. of guilt), but highly prejudicial.
! If accomplice testifies, confession/plea will probably come up because it’s relevant to
credibility (either on direct or cross). But D gets a limiting instruction saying only to use
that for witness cred.
(f) Substantial Similarity (Similar Circumstances & Demonstrations)
! P wants to introduce similar event to show how something occurred; must be very similar
• As conditions get less similar probative value decreases
! Nachtsheim v. Beech Aircraft (7 th Cir. 1988), p. 147
• Decedent killed in plane crash; P arguing plane design unsafe- frozen elevator.
D argued pilot error. P tried to introduce evidence of St. Anne’s crash. But no
evidence that frozen elevator was cause of SA crash)
• Court held not substantially similar to introduce earlier incident.
! * Pandit v. Honda Motor Co. (10 th Cir. 1996), p. 153
• Ev. of absence of similar accidents admissible as long as adequate foundation;
proponent shows substantially similar product was used in substantially similar
circumstances
! * Fusco v. Gen. Motors Corp. (1 st Cir. 1993), p. 153
• No substantial similarity when D tried to show how ball joint disengages w/
professional driver on dry track intentionally disengaging it
• PV low b/c differences not recreative of actual situation; prejudice high b/c jury
will think this is how it happened.
! Vioxx
• P wants to show Vioxx caused heart attack, wants to introduce E of heart attacks
by other users.
• P can argue not to show causation but to show D was on notice (common
second strategy w/SS issues) that Vioxx could cause attacks.
o D will say- but jury will use for causation, will confuse, high prej.
• Courts differ in result on this issue
! Kehm
• The “frontier of discretion”: judge allowed explosive chemical demonstration in
a tampon toxic shock case (limiting instruction was permitted)
! Gaskill
• CPR practice baby in baby-shaking case not close enough to real baby. Not OK.
• But if demonstrative is dissimilar in a way that is worse for you, OK.
! Ex (Improper): P hit by backing-up truck. D says beeper should have alerted. Wants to
play recording of truck to jury. But not SS- jury will be expecting it.
! Ex (Proper): Drug boat case- as coast guard went by, 2 guys jumped off. Then saw on
beach, trying to link to boat. Conditions dark, only saw on boat 2-3 seconds. Gov’t in
courtroom shone light on Ds from 120 ft away.
• Sub. Sim: Coast Guard and jury both focused on guys, limited prej. by not
shining right on them. Proper demonstration.
•
o
o
FRE&407&–&Subsequent&Remedial&Measures&
-
-
When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of
the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:
o negligence; culpable conduct; a defect in a product or its design; or a need for a warning or
instruction.
But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or — if disputed —
proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures.
6
US v. Yazzie (9th Cir. 1992), p. 455 ............................................................................................................................ 17
US v. Ybarra ................................................................................................................................................................. 25
US v. Zenni ................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Vinyard v. Vinyard Funeral Home (MO 1968), p. 593 ................................................................................................ 25
Vioxx .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Walker .......................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Walters .......................................................................................................................................................................... 45
Weil v. Seltzer (DC Cir. 1989), p. 307 ......................................................................................................................... 14
Westberry v. Gislaved Bummi AB (4th Cir. 1999), p. 511 .......................................................................................... 19
Wilkus........................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Williams v. Illinois ....................................................................................................................................................... 37
Williamson v. US ......................................................................................................................................................... 30
Wilson v. Beebe............................................................................................................................................................ 35
Wolak v. Spucci (2d Cir. 2000), p. 324 ........................................................................................................................ 16
Wood v. Morbark (11th Cir. 1995) – p. 193................................................................................................................... 7
Wyley ........................................................................................................................................................................... 47
York .............................................................................................................................................................................. 36
Rules!
104(a) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 27
104(b) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 13
404(a)(2)(A) ................................................................................................................................................................. 10
404(a)(2)(B) .................................................................................................................................................................. 10
404(a)(2)(C) .................................................................................................................................................................. 10
404(a)(3) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10
502(e) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 49
613(b) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 43
801(d)(1) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 38
801(d)(1)(A) ........................................................................................................................................................... 26, 43
801(d)(1)(B) ........................................................................................................................................................... 26, 44
801(d)(1)(C) ................................................................................................................................................................. 26
801(d)(2) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 38
801(d)(2)(A) ................................................................................................................................................................. 26
801(d)(2)(B) ................................................................................................................................................................. 27
801(d)(2)(C) ................................................................................................................................................................. 27
801(d)(2)(D) ................................................................................................................................................................. 27
801(d)(2)(E) .................................................................................................................................................................. 27
803(1) ............................................................................................................................................................... 30, 35, 38
803(18) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 39
803(2) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 38
803(3) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 38
803(4) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 38
803(5) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 38
803(6) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 38
803(7) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 38
803(8) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 38, 39
803(9) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 39
804(a)(2) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 28
804(a)(3) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 28
804(a)(4) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 28
804(b)(1) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 39
804(b)(2) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 39
804(b)(3) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 39
804(b)(6) ................................................................................................................................................................. 30, 39
807 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 39
FRE 101 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 36
59