Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Evidence Outline

    Transféré par

    Brian Goldberg
    34 vues2 pages
    EVIDENCE Prof. Godfrey: relevance, probative value, AND THE RULE 403 Dangers. He says there are three main reasons why appellate courts review judicial discretion. The first reason is that appellate courts are not required to consider all evidence. The second reason is that appeals courts must consider all evidence, he says.

    Description originale:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formats disponibles

    DOCX, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    EVIDENCE Prof. Godfrey: relevance, probative value, AND THE RULE 403 Dangers. He says there are three main reasons why appellate courts review judicial discretion. The first reason is that appellate courts are not required to consider all evidence. The second reason is that appeals courts must consider all evidence, he says.

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme DOCX, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    34 vues2 pages

    Evidence Outline

    Transféré par

    Brian Goldberg
    EVIDENCE Prof. Godfrey: relevance, probative value, AND THE RULE 403 Dangers. He says there are three main reasons why appellate courts review judicial discretion. The first reason is that appellate courts are not required to consider all evidence. The second reason is that appeals courts must consider all evidence, he says.

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme DOCX, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 2

    EVIDENCE Prof. GodfreySpring 2012 CHAPTER 3. RELEVANCY, PROBATIVE VALUE, AND THE RULE 403 DANGERS A.

    RelevancyThe Basic Concept 1. FRE 401 and 402 2. Interpretation and Illustration of FRE 401 and 402 a. Relevant Evidence Is Offered to Prove a Fact of Consequence (Materiality) b. Relevant Evidence Must Make a Fact of Consequence More or Less Probable i. FRE 401s Minimal Standard of Any Tendency. ii. Inferential Reasoning Is Based on Generalizations from Knowledge and Experience iii. Relevancy Requires Reasonable Generalizations iv. Generalizations Can Be the Subject of Proof v. Limits on Reasonable Generalizations vi. The Policy of FRE 401 Favors Admissibility c. Direct Versus Circumstantial Evidence d. Background Information e. Relevancy Is Not Sufficient 3. Elaboration of FRE 401 and 402 Knapp v. State (1907) US v. Stever (9th Cir. 2010) 4. Reflection on the Requirement of Relevancy B. Probative Value And The Rule 403 Dangers 1. FRE 403 2. Interpretation and Illustration of FRE 403 a. Probative Value i. Strength of the Underlying Inferences ii. Certainty of the Starting Point iii. Need b. Rule 403 Dangers i. Unfair Prejudice ii. Confusion of the Issues iii. Misleading the Jury iv. Undue Delay, Waste of Time, and Needless Cumulative Evidence c. Probative Value Substantially Outweighed by One of the FRE 403 Dangers i. The Meaning of Substantially Outweigh. ii. The Effect of Limiting Instructions on the Balancing Process 3. Elaboration of FRE 403: Appellate Review of Judicial Discretion Under FRE 403 3 main reasons why appellate courts defer to the trial courts judgments under FRE 403: o Complexity and Uncertainty o Competence o Tolerance for Outcomes That Appear Inconsistent US v. Hitt (9th Cir. 1992) o Facts: D was indicted and convicted of altering a gun so that it was a machine gun. However, the D claimed that it was already that way when he bought it.

    Rule: Where the evidence is of very slight (if any) probative value, its an abuse of discretion to admit it if theres even a modest likelihood of unfair prejudice or a small risk of misleading the jury. Old Chief v. US (1997) o Facts: D was indicted and convicted of assault and weapons charges and a violation of 18 USC 922 which makes it unlawful for anyone who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm. The D tried to enter into a stipulation of evidence that he was convicted of a similar crime before, which is required o Issue: Whether the name or general character of a crime has to be disclosed? o Holding: Reversed.

    CHAPTER 4. LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR PROOF A. Laying the Foundation for Witnesses 1. FRE 601-2. Interpretation and Illustration of FRE 601 3. Elaboration of FRE 601: Challenging a Witnesss Mental Competency 4. FRE 602 5. Interpretation and Illustration of FRE 602 a. The Requirement of Personal Knowledge b. The Requirement of Evidence Sufficient to Support a Finding B. The Authentication and Identification of Exhibits 1. FRE 901 2. Interpretation and Illustration of FRE 901 a. What the Exhibit Is Claimed to Be b. The Requirement of Evidence Sufficient to Support a Finding c. FRE 901(b) Illustrates How to Produce Evidence Sufficient to Support a Finding d. Judicial Determinations of Sufficiency Under FRE 901(a) e. The Process of Laying the Foundation 3. Elaboration of FRE 901: Real Evidence, Demonstrative and Computer-Generated Exhibits, Recordings and Written Documents a. Real Evidence i. Identification Through a Readily Identifiable Characteristic

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi