Evicence Outline 1

8/18/2019 Evicence Outline 1

1/68

Evidence OutlineDavis 2011Thompson

Evidence: Fisher Second Edition

FEDERAL R ULE OF EVIDENCE

--Most of the states, 42 by last count, have adopted F!E as thei" o#n state "ules of evidence--$e# "ules, not much substantive chan%ed, to be fo"mally confi"med by the end of ou" cou"se

IMPORTANCE OF THE JURA! IN"UIR INTO THE VALIDIT OF VERDICT OR INDICTMENT

#$#%&

'

&'O$ ($ )$*&)!+ )$TO TE (.)D)T+ OF ( E!D)/T)$D)/TME$T, A JUROR MA NOT TESTIF TO AN MATTER OR STATEMENT OCCURRIN( DURIN( THE COURSE OF THE JUR)S DELI&ERATIONS OR TO THE EFFECT OF

ANTHIN( UPON THAT OR AN OTHER JUROR )S MIND OR EMOTIONS AS INFLUENCIN( THE JUROR TO ASSENT

TO OR DISSENT FROM THE VERDICT OR INDICTMENT O! /O$/E!$)$ TE &!O! 3 ME$T(. '!O/EE )$ /O$$E/T)O$ TE!E5)T

&UT ( &!O! M(+ TET)F+ (6O&T 718 5ETE! E9T!($EO& '!E&D)/)(. )$FO!M(T)O$ 5( )M'!O'E!.+ 6!O&T TO TE &!+3 (TTE$T)O$ ( ANY “ MATTER OR STATEMENT ” OCCURRING DURING DELIBERATIONS ), 7285ETE! ($+ O&T)DE )$F.&E$/E 5( )M'!O'E!.+ 6!O&T TO 6E(! &'O$ ($+ &!O! , 76!)6ET!E(T8

( EFFECT ON MIND OR EMOTIONS OF JUROR AS IT RELATES TO HER ASSENT OR DISSENT FROM THE VERDICT ) O! 7:85ETE! TE!E 5( ( M)T(;E )$ E$TE!)$ TE E!D)/T O$TO TE E!D)/T FO!M ( &!O! 3 (FF)D()T O! E)DE$/E OF ($+ T(TEME$T 6+ TE &!O! M(+ $OT 6E !E/E)ED O$ ( M(TTE! (6O&T 5)/ TE &!O! 5O&.D 6E '!E/.&DED F!OM TET)F+)$

i P*r+ose o, +rotectin- .*r/ de0i1er2tions< 718 Enhance finality of =ud%ments > avoid second-%uessin% o" collate"al attac?s a%ainst the ve"dict@ 728 '"otect =u"o"s a%ainst ha"assment by la#ye"s #ho a"e see?in% some basis of appeal@ 7:8Enable =u"o"s to delibe"ate #ithout any fea"s > this is thei" thin%@ A 748 '"otect =u"o"s and =u"y system to help p"ese"ve community t"ust in the le%itimacy of ve"dicts

ii Tanner v. U.S. %3456' > stands f! t"# s$st#%&s 'n**n+n#ss t *, -ast t"# .'!$&s /#!d0t t #1-s# "at#/#! f*as n !#asnn+ ! 'nd#!standn+ %+"t *# 2#"nd t"# 0'!tan f t"#d#*2#!atn !%3- (fte" conviction, D #anted to offe" evidence of =u"o" misconduct includin% booBin% on the lunch b"ea?s, ta?in%and sellin% d"u%s, and sleepin% du"in% the t"ial /ou"t denies his motion CChi%hly p"otective of =u"y system@ #hythe emphasis is on "ules of evidence

77 &ECAUSE 8E APPARENTL DO NOT TRUST JURIES TO CAST OFF AND DISRE(ARD MEANIN(LESS9 MISLEADIN(9AND UNRELIA&LE EVIDENCE9 8E SCREEN OUT SUCH EVIDENCE &EFORE JURIES EVEN HEAR IT! THIS SCREENIN(

PROCESS"UALIT CONTROL IS THE REALM OF EVIDENCE LA8!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1


2/68


UNIT 3 R ELEVANCE CHAPTER 3 (ENERAL PRINCIPLES OF R ELEVANCE

I! R ELEVANC ; is a "elation bet#een an item of evidence and a p"oposition sou%ht to be p"oveda MATERIAL AND PRO&ATIVE

ISTENCE OF AN FACT THAT ISOF CONSE"UENCE TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE ACTION MORE PRO&A&LE O! .E '!O6(6.E T($ )T 5O&.D6E 5)TO&T TE E)DE$/E ( ANYTHING THAT AFFECTS HO4 JURORS FEEL ABOUT THE VERDICT 5 JUST SOME EFFECT 6 IT DOESN & T HAVE TO 7ROVE THE ISSUE 6 JUST A TENDENCY TO AFFECT THE CONCLUSION )

2 possible solutions< 718 ?eep it out@ o" 728 let it in #ith a =u"y limitin% inst"uction > !ule 10I

:


3/68


Gsubstantially out#ei%hH its p"obative value CCDon3t use all ob=ections at once Fi"st, Gnot "elevantH Denied-then,a"%ue unde" 40: Gho#HH#hyH the evidence is unfai"

6 CONDITIONAL R ELEVANCE 7 the"e eists a chain of infe"ences leadin% f"om the contested fact to the conclusionof D3s %uilt A it is seve"ed if conditional fact7s8 a"e not established3$ he ?ne# he #asn3t the fathe" A he ?ne# she #as %oin% to tell@ p"osecuto"a"%ued that the #o"ds Ghe" sonH and if she #as %oin% to tell the son she #ould have told him fi"st Evidence camein, but it3s uestionable if the conditional fact #as sufficiently established

ii Cox v. State - 0'!t %a$ ad%t #/d#n0# aft#! a -!#*%na!$ d#t#!%natn f t"#!# s s'ff0#nt #/d#n0# t s'--!t a fndn+ t"at t"# 0ndtna* fa0t #1sts tate theo"iBed that D ?illed victim bc he testified a%ainst D3sclose f"iend in anothe" case Condition20 ,2ct > D had to ?no# that the deceased testified a%ainst his f"iend Evidence that D and f"iend #e"e close, D #as at f"iends mom3s house a lot, A othe" #itness testimony #assufficient suppo"t that D ?ne# of the deceased3s testimony

c PRO&ATIVENESS V! R IS= OF UNFAIR PREJUDICE1 ADMISSI&ILIT OF PHOTO(RAPHS AND VIDEOS

i State v. Bocharski %?$$3' ; (utopsy disclosed that victim died f"om 1K head stab #ounds $o mu"de" #eaponand D3s undated fin%e"p"ints #e"e found on the doo" D a"%ues the"e #as no epe"t testimony about ent"y o"an%le of #ounds >=ust a %"aphic photo Co*rt s2/s +hotos ere *n0iGe0/ to 1e o,,ered ,or 2n/ re2son otherth2n to in,02e the .*r/, 1*t no revers20 bc cou"t said it #as ha"mless e""o" A did not influence the =u"yve"dicts< 718 felony mu"de" conviction #ould have been unli?ely if =u"y #as inflamed o" impassioned by photos@ A 728 t"ial =ud%e obse"ved =u"y3s "eactions > Gthey too? photos in st"ideH CCappellate cou"ts usuallydon3t "eve"se on photos >t"ial cou"t disc"etionConc*rrence > Mu"de" is a %"isly business and is li?ely to involve %"isly photo%"aphs (bsent e%"e%ious e""o"#e should not distu"b "ule 40: #ei%hin% 5e should not be pate"nalistic #ith ou" =u"o"s

ii C0i+ > D cha"%ed #ith ?illin% infant@ tate theo"iBes it #as a "even%e ?illin% #hen infants mothe" tu"ned do#nD3s ma""ia%e p"oposal 'hoto of infant in shallo# %"ave '"osecuto" says it sho#s D3s callous attitude to#a"dinfant 7mindset of accused8 and %oes di"ectly to "even%e ?illin% theo"y D says its p"e=udicial and doesn3t addanythin% that can3t be testified to ud%e a%"ees - it doesn)t t2Ge 2 +ict*re to descri1e this scen2rio ;not200oed in

iii Pro10e 3!5 > issue in case #as if D3s "ifle #as "apid-fi"e D3s epe"ts found it only fi"ed one shot, but stateepe"ts found the opposite tate photo about a possible malfunction> photo sho#ed %un clean@ D a"%ued bc photo had othe" %uns in it A it didn3t sho# the inte"io" of the %un, it #as 718 p"e=udicial - it #ould ma?e the =u"y thin? D #as some ?ind of %un-o#nin% nut and 728 unnecessa"y Lth /i"cuit "eve"sed allo#ance of photo bcof +re.*dici20 e,,ect ;+hoto reve20s nothin- 21o*t the inside o, the -*n 200 o, the other -*ns 1e0on-edto D)s roo2te9 not D

iv Commonwealth v. Serge %?$$#' 8 /( p"ope"ly admitted - it #as not d"amatic and it adeuately se"ved asdemonst"ative evidence >old days - chal? boa"ds, technolo%y no# allo#s /(s@ +ro12tive v20*e is -re2terth2n 2n/ +re.*dice! tate3s Theo"y< D sta%ed self defense A they #ant to sho# ho# # a /ompute" ene"ated

3


4/68


(nimation as demonst"ative evidence 7I secs@ no voice ove"@ shot t"a=ecto"y8 /( allo#ed #ith limitin%inst"uction - Ganimation is only as %ood as unde"lyin% testimony A data .i?e all evidence you may accept o""e=ect itH 718 /( #ill assist t"ie" of fact by combinin% epe"t testimony into an easily unde"standable p"esentation@ 728 no unfai" p"e=udice bc it omits violence, blood, facial ep"essions, etc@ 7:8 "i%ht of the p"osecuto" to p"ove thei" case in a convincin% #ay@ 748 limitin% inst"uction solves any unfai"ness@ 7I8 D can as? fo" NN to ma?e thei" o#n /( 7if denied, but it can be "aised on appeal8 CNote D claimed self-defense, so headmitted pullin% the t"i%%e", but if he didn3t it mi%ht be p"e=udicial that the shoote" in /( "esembled him

v United States v. James: J*d-e =0ein,e0dKs dissent > E/d#n0# s"'*d 2# #10*'d#d f ts -!2at/# /a*'# “s s'2stanta**$ 't#+"#d 2$ t"# dan+#! f 'nfa! -!#.'d0#” : !'*# ; he sees policeoffice"s up ahead > and then they %o into an oil field and %o a"ound the police

@! PRO&A&ILIT EVIDENCE 7 p"obabilistic evidence poses a "is? of unfai" p"e=udice #hen it is #"on%, #hen it "ests on eithe" false data o" mista?enmathematical p"inciples, A #hen fla#s cannot "eadily be id3di! People v. Collins %34#5' - .ady "obbed by a blonde ponytail #oman and

nei%hbo" sa# he" %et into a yello# ca" d"iven by a blac? man #ith amustache '"osecuto" uses mathematical p"obability evidence@ Gepe"tHtestified the"e #as a 1 in 12 million chance that the Ds #e"e innocent+ello# ca" 71108@ man # mustache 7148@ %i"l # ponytail 71108@ blondehai" 71:8@ inte""acial couple 7110008 --- numbe"s de"ived f"om his

4


5/68


sec"eta"ies3 %uesses and spoon fed to the #itness )n closin%, he tells the =u"o"s they could ma?e up thei" o#n p"obabilities Introd*cin- 2the2tic20 +ro121i0it/ st2tistics re*ires 2n 2de*2te ,o*nd2tion inevidence 2nd 2de*2te +roo, o, st2tistic20 inde+endence! (ppeals cou"t "eve"sed bc evidence had noadeuate evidentia"y foundation o" independent statistical p"oof, thus admission #as p"e=udicial e""o" C$ot acomplete denial of p"obabilities, but "easons that math shouldn3t Gcast a spellH )n condemnin% math done badly, the =ustices did not "e=ect the utility of math done #ellHNote: Today D$( evidence counte"s any claim that /ollins fo"eve" banished the so"ce"e" mathematics f"omc"iminal cou"t"ooms $ot to say D$( "esults a"e "i%ht, human e""o" can disto"t D$( analysis, but such "is?stypically do not =ustify ecludin% D$( test "esults because =u"o"s unde"stand the "is?s and can assess themT*rns on the so*ndness o, the 2th9 2cc*r2c/ o, *nder0/in- ,2cts9 2nd 21i0it/ o, .*rors to 2ssess ,02s

1e/ond 2th!

ii! Pres*ed Innocent C0i+ ; D( cha"%ed #ith mu"de" > #hen accused he sto"med out@ '"osecuto"< Did youfollo# himJ 5itness< +es '< +ou said- you did it, didn3t you, did he deny thatJ 5< $o, he said- "i%ht, "i%ht,you3"e al#ays "i%ht Is this 2n 2dission o, -*i0t De,ense< ta?en out of contet this is p"e=udicial@ voice ofsa"casm in a st"ained "elationship G) did itH is p"obative, but that3s not #hat #as said he"e Prosec*tion< headmitted it@ his %ut "eaction #as to a%"ee instead of defend

4 STIPULATIONS- a%"eement b# pa"ties "ead to the =u"y statin% a pa"ticula" factpiece of evidence is a%"eed to bet"ue, includes #itness statements and evidence foundations ( stipulation is not as -#!f'* as havin% a #itnessactually testify /once"ns< u"o"s mi%ht %et the imp"ession that they a"e not "eceivin% the #hole sto"y and mi%ht letthei" ima%inations fill in the missin% %aps

i United States v. Jackson- '"osecution is entitled to p"ove its case by evidence of its o#n choice@ a c"im D maynot stipulateadmit his #ay out of full evidentia"y fo"ce %ove"nment3s case chooses to p"esent it- D accused of $+ %unpoint "obbe"y@ found in ( #ith %uns A a""ested fo" usin% a false identity e #ants tostipulate that he #as in anothe" state A used a false name &UT the +rosec*tion s2/s the ho0e stor/ isre0ev2nt bc it tends to ma?e a fact mo"e p"obable and it is p"obative of the consciousness of %uilt in the ea"lie""obbe"y D a"%ues unfai" p"e=udice P2rties c2n sti+*02te 2nd 2chieve the s2e +*r+ose! The conditionsimposed he"e a"e =ustifiable

ii Old Chief v. United States %3446' > A--#**at# 0'!ts 's'a**$ d#f#! t t!a* 0'!ts& !'*n+s 2as#d n ;


6/68


UNIT 3 R ELEVANCE CHAPTER ? THE SPECIALIED R ELEVANCE R ULES

7 'e" se "ules because these a"e ci"cumstances #he"e specific types of evidence offe"ed a"e pe" se p"e=udicial o" pe" se out#ei%hed by p"obative value CCThe"e a"e eceptions, but it is not common fo" this type of evidence to eve" be admitted

I! FRE T POLIC

> 6(! &6E*&E$T !EMED)(. ME(&!E TO '!OE $E.)E$/E,/&.'(6.E /O$D&/T, '!OD&/T DEFE/T,O! $EED FO! 5(!$)$, 6&T TO '!OE OTE! T)$ G&/ (H O5$E!)',/O$T!O., O! FE()6).)T+, )F /O$T!OE!TED, O! TO )M'E(/

718 E)DE$/E OF !EMED+ ) OFTE$ 5E(; E)DE$/E OF $E.)E$/E 6E/(&E 5E /($$OT (+ T(T G6E/(&E TE 5O!.D ET 5)E! ( )T ET O.DE! ,TE!EFO!E )T 5( FOO.) 6EFO!EH6&T GTE )$FE!E$/E OF $E.)E$/E ) ( 'O)6.E O$E 6E/(&E !E'()! TE$D TO O5 /O$/)O&$E T(T TE )T&(T)O$ /(..ED FO! (DD)T)O($. (FET+ '!E/(&T)O$

728 TO E$/O&!(E !EMED)E Q TE MO!E )M'!E)E !O&$D FO! E9/.&)O$

ADMISSI&ILIT CHART:

FRE


7/68


v Third P2rt/ Re+2irs< G#hen measu"es a"e ta?enH seems to apply to "epai"s by any pa"ty, 6&T "ule3s policy%ives no %"ounds fo" ecludin% thi"d-pa"ty "epai"s since it li?ely #ouldn3t dissuade "epai"s because evidence%+"t be offe"ed a+anst s%#n# #*s# Most cou"ts follo# this "easonin% and admit the evidence 6&T ho# cananothe" pa"ty3s late" "epai" be "elevant to this D3s ne%li%enceJ Thus, some cou"ts find that althou%h evidence isnot ba""ed by 40, it has little p"obative fo"ce to %et past 40:

vi Strict Li21i0it/< 1LL amendment to 40 made clea" the "ule applies in . defective p"oduct suits bc even la"%escale p"oduct ma?e"s mi%ht be dete""ed f"om ma?in% "epai"s if evidence could be used a%ainst them

))


8/68


C200K amendment too? out the #o"ds Gothe"#ise discove"ableH, but the intent "emains the same

III! T POLIC

INADMISSI&ILIT OF PLEAS9 PLEA DISCUSSIONS9 AND R ELATED STATEMENTS 7 E9/E'T ( OTE!5)E '!O)DED )$ T) !&.E, E)DE$/E OF TE FO..O5)$ ) $OT, )$ ($+ /)). O! /!)M)$(. '!O/EED)$, (DM))6.E (()$T TE DEFE$D($T 5O M(DE TE '.E( O! 5( ('(!T)/)'($T )$ TE '.E( D)/&)O$<THESE THIN(S ARE AL8AS &ARRED %UNLESS SPECIFICALL ALLO8ED UNDER THE

HO8EVER CLAUSE:

718 ( '.E( OF (UILT 8HICH 8AS LATER 8ITHDRA8N@728 ( '.E( OF NOLO CONTENDERE 7 $O /O$TET8@7:8 ($+ STATEMENT MADE IN THE COURSE OF AN PROCEEDIN(S UNDER R ULE 33 OF F!/!)M '!O O! /OM'(!(6.E T(TE '!O/ED&!E !E(!D)$ E)TE! OF TE FO!EO)$ '.E(@O! 748 ($+ STATEMENT MADE IN THE COURSE OF PLEA DISCUSSIONS 5)T ($ (TTO!$E+ FO! TE '!OE/&T)$ (&TO!)T+ 5)/ DO $OT !E&.T )$ ( '.E( OF &).T+ O! 5)/ !E&.T )$ ( '.E( OF &).T+ .(TE! 5)TD!(5$

HO8EVER , &/ ( T(TEME$T ) (DM))6.E 7)8 )$ ($+ '!O/EED)$ 5E!E)$ ($OTE! T(TEME$T M(DE )$ TE /O&!E OF TE (ME '.E( O! '.E( D)/&)O$ ( 6EE$

)$T!OD&/ED ($D TE T(TEME$T O&T )$ F()!$E 6E /O$)DE!ED /O$TEM'O!($EO&.+ 5)T )T, O! 7))8 )$ ( /!)M)$(. '!O/EED)$ FO! 'E!&!+ O! F(.E T(TEME$T )F TE T(TEME$T 5( M(DE 6+ TE DEFE$D($T &$DE! O(T, O$ TE !E/O!D ($D )$ TE '!EE$/E OF /O&$E.

718 ( DEFE$D($T,(.TO& $OT &).T+,M)T OFFE! ( '.E( TO (O)D TE !); OF .O (FTE! T!)(. ($D ($ EE$ !E(TE! 'E$(.T+

$OTE TE (6E$/E OF ($+ &/ (!&ME$T )$ TE (D)O!+ /OMM)TTEE3 $OTE

728 E9/.&)O$ 5).. '!OMOTE '.E( 6(!()$)$

tatements D ma?es du"in% plea ne%otiations #ith p"osecuto" may not be used to impeach if D testifies

diffe"ently late" C410 ope"ates diffe"ently f"om all othe" specialiBed "elevance "ules

'lea ne%otiation p"otection only etends if D fi"st establishes he3s see?in% a concession@ some cou"ts inte"p"et

this b"oadly and say D3s intent is enou%h@ if D unilate"ally offe"s info #ithout fi"st establishin% that he is see?in% aconcession, a cou"t may dete"mine no plea discussion3 be%an and D3s statements a"e admissible!

The "ule only cove"s discussions ith +rosec*tors 7not police8

6a"s evidence of pleasdiscussions n*$ "#n ff#!#d a+anst D

Po0ic/: %3' Re0ev2nce< ( D, althou%h not %uilty, mi%ht offe" a plea to avoid the "is? of loss afte" t"ial and an

even %"eate" penalty 2nd %?' P*10ic Po0ic/< Encou"a%e plea ba"%ainin% and allo# p"osecuto"s to use a coope"atin%defendant #ithout impe"ilin% his constitutional "i%htsi United States v. Biaggi %3443' > A re.ected i*nit/ o,,er is si-ni,ic2nt0/ ore +ro12tive th2n +re.*dici20

2nd sho*0d 1e 2dissi10e 2s evidence o, innocence! D "e=ects immunity offe" and claims innocence 0"a!+#s 0'*d #/d#n0# an nn0#nt stat# f %nd6 2't nf#!#n0# s nt n#a!*$ as st!n+ as a!#.#0tn f an --!t'nt$ t -!#0*'d# a** #1-s'!# t a 0n/0tn3 The unfai"ness of this eclusion #aseace"bated #hen %ove"nment p"esented evidence of D3s consciousness of %uilt

ii 5hat if, G$o than?s )3d "athe" face you %uys at sentencin%, then those %uys up some da"? alleyH /an be used tosho# ove"all contet 7fai"ness8 > D opens the doo" then othe" pa"ts mi%ht come in

iii Notes< 6y it3s te"ms the "ule does not p"event D f"om p"esentin% evidence that p"osecuto"s offe"ed to d"op a

cha"%e du"in% plea discussions ie Ba++, but since the same policy a"%ument can be applied, some cou"ts i%no"ethe lan%ua%e and ba" the evidence any#ays

IV! T POLIC

> 6(! .)(6).)T+ )$&!($/E O! .(/; OF )T TO '!OE $E.)E$/E5!O$F&. (/T)O$, 6&T $OT TO '!OE OTE! T)$ &/ ( (E$/+, O5$E!)', /O$T!O., O!

7187(8 )T ) &$.);E.+ T(T TE )$&!ED (!E MO!E /(!E.E O! T(T TE &$)$&!ED (!E MO!E /(!EF&.768 TE &!+ M)TO TE!5)E EE; DEE' 7)$&!ED8 'O/;ET O! !ED&/E !E/OE!)E TO )$&!ED '.()$T)FF Q TE MO!E )M'O!T($T !O&$D FO! E9/.&)O$

8


9/68


5)T$E 6)(728 E9/.&)O$ E$/O&!(E )$&!)$ ($D (O)D ( 5)$DF(.. FO! TE O''O$E$T OF ($ )$&!ED '(!T+

CC)t used to be that the #o"d insu"ance #as automatic %"ounds fo" a mist"ial - ' usually #ants to sho# D has liabilityinsu"ance and D #ants to sho# if he doesn3t

i %illiams v. !cCo$ %?$$3' > 'e"sonal in=u"y claim@ D said ' hi"ed atto"ney befo"e docto" visit 7' #as #o"?in%the system8 ' #ants to eplain that she hi"ed the atto"ney afte" a visit f"om D3s claims ad=uste", but #asn3t

allo#ed ' contended he" eplanation #as admissible fo" a pu"pose othe" than eistence of liability insu"ance


10/68


ii CLIP: D accused of ?illin% a man #ho made seual advances to#a"d his #ife D< Do you love you" #ifeJ +es si"7b"in%s up D3s cha"acte"8 P< o# many men have you ?illedJ O1.ection - a man3s #a" "eco"d should not be useda%ainst him P< #a" can condition a man to ?illuse of fi"ea"ms on othe" human bein%s D< ) ?illed 4 men Maybe othe"s, but ) don3t ?no#De,ense< p"e=udicial - paintin% D as a ?ille" A time #astin% bc D #ill have to defend it as a man #ho se"ved thiscount"yProsec*tion< this is a pe"son #ho has ?illed befo"e and it sho#s he had the means and s?ill to do so a%ain -4047b8 motive, oppo"tunity, p"epa"ation, ?no#led%e - this %oes di"ectly to ?no#led%e of use of %un, #hich is ho#the victim died e put on testimony about his lovin% ma""ia%e A set out his cha"acte" openin% the doo"J*d-e)s Discretion< ?eep in mind, the"e is that #o"d GmayH > ud%e had ability to deny it

&! PROPENSIT &O>< violent D mi%ht be mo"e li?ely to sta"t a fi%ht than a mild pe"son, 6&T unfai" p"e=udice718 u"y #ill %ive it ecessive #ei%ht and allo# it to bea" too st"on%ly on p"esent cha"%e 7cha"acte" evidence is usuallycolo"ful ando" memo"able8728 )t mi%ht help =ustify a %uilty ve"dict i""espective of p"esent cha"%e %uilt 7ie D should be off the st"eets8@ o" 7b8 =u"ymi%ht punish because othe" offense dese"ves punishment7:8 )t could confuse and dist"act the =u"y and d"a% out t"ial because D #ill #ant to counte" it

CEPTIONS THE ARE E>AMPLESQQQ THE ARE NOT COMPLETE ET

ILLUSTRATIVE %(O AROUND PROPENSIT'

R OUTES AROUND THE PROPENSIT &O> %INFERENCE THAT D IS THE TPE OF PERSON TO HAVE COMMITTED A

CRIME': )dentity eception to place D at the c"ime scene EVIDENCE OF ( #CKO%*T( + S OTHER 8EAPONS

-To p"ove his vicious and dan%e"ous cha"acte" -To p"ove he #as at the c"ime scene

To p"ove action in confo"mity the"e#ith

-To p"ove he ?illed #ith p"emeditation -To p"ove he #as the shoote"

THROU(H THE PROPENSIT &O>9 NOT VALID IF OFFERED TO PROVE HIS IDENTIT9 VALID

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2! Tr*e EBce+tions to the &oB

,. D accused of b"ibin% a fed "evenue a%ent

int"oduced #itnesses testifyin% to his %ood "eputation in the community On c"oss, p"osecuto" validlyint"oduced specific acts and as?ed #itnesses if they ?ne# D #as a""ested fo" buyin% stolen %oods

10


11/68


People v. (ackowit) %34@$': /ha"acte" is neve" an issue in a c"iminal

p"osecution unless D chooses to ma?e it one '"osecution could not int"oduce evidence that D o#ned%uns to sho# he #as a pe"son c"iminally inclined and had an evil cha"acte"

@3 ; THIS IS AROUND THE &O> &ECAUSE IT IS NOT

SAIN( HIS PRIOR CONVICTION MA=ES HIM AN MORE PRO&A&L TO HAVE DONE

THIS CIRME9 &UT RATHER HE HAS =NO8LED(E OF THE TRADE

iv! @!@ - ene"al "eputation that he #as a d"in?e" and conducted his =ob ne%li%ently > sho#s that !! ?ne#o" should have ?no#n his "eputation fo" usin% alcohol pa"ticula"ly #hile he #as ope"atin% the t"ain>>In t!$n+ t !, a!'nd t"# 21 ? ,##- t"# f0's aa$ f!% "s 0"a!a0t#!


12/68


IF HAVE TO HAVE PROPENSIT TO COMPLETE THE INFERENCE CHAN(E9 OU HAVE A PERTISE IS AN AROUND THE &O> AR(UMENT ; THIS DOES NOT RE"UIRE PROPENSIT

REASONIN(7 FOR E>AMPLE: SOMEONE HAS HAC=IN( E>PERTISE9 HE IS MORE LI=EL TO

COMIT THIS CRIME9 NOT &ECAUSE HE HAS DONE IT &EFORE9 &UT &ECAUSE HE IS AMON(

ONL SOME OF THE FE8 PEOPLE 8ITH THE E>PERTISE A&LE TO PULL IT OFF

?! Proo, o, Motive

i! @! F6) a%ents follo#in% van@ one a%ent says > it loo?s li?e they a"e %oin% to shoot at us, then shots b"ea? out, and a%ents a"e fatally shot ov #ants to admit that D #as cha"%ed # attempted mu"de" in 5)A failed to appea" This cha"%e %ave him a motive to ?ill these a%ents CNote< ov did not t"y to alsoadmit that the p"evious cha"%e #as mu"de" of an off-duty police man

ii! Pres*ed Innocent C0i+ > attempt to ente" evidence of D3s affai" #ith victim D< he3s not on t"ial fo"an affai">hi%hly p"e=udicial St2te< motive to ?ill - affai"

@! Proo, o, Identit/

i!

ii! @!# - /a""yin% a %un consistent #ith one used in the ?illin%s can sho# identity obviously conside"ed inconnection #ith othe" evidence in the case ; h2s to 1e 2 re200/ serio*s crie in order ,or .*r/ to

decide ho *ch ei-ht %hen considerin- otive'iii! @!6 ; ov offe"s that D had been convicted of ille%al comme"cial %amblin% p"eviously because

mate"ials cu""ently seiBed involve ille%al %amblin%, so the fact that he #as in the apa"tment and hadfo"me" simila" cha"%es connects him to the mate"ials even thou%h he3s claimin% they a"en3t his 'lus, his p"evious conviction demonst"ates his ability to commit c"imes li?e this D< a"%ues diffe"ences b#cha"%es and unfai" p"e=udice 11th ci"cuit did thin? the p"e=udice out#ei%hed p"obative value, but aff3d bc it #as ha"mless e""o"

iv United States v. Trenkler v %344' > Signatre evidence 0 crimes are so similar1 motis

operandi 6 t"at t&s a*%st *,# t"# -#!sn "as -'t "s s+nat'!# n

t3 E/d#n0# s ad%ss2*# 'nd#! ;ACT MATCH IS NOT NECESARR ; &UT OU LOO= AT TOTALIT AND LOO= FOR

3' CHARACTERISTIC %I!E! LOTS OF SIMILARITIES' ?' ONE HI(HL DISTINCTIVE

SIMILARIT

vii D convicted of cha"%es "elated to Massachusetts3s bomb eplosion D appeals challen%in% admission ofevidence "elated to D3s involvement in a p"io" bombin% &nde" 4047b8, the"e #as such a special"elevance #ith "espect to the evidence and a "easonable =u"y could have dete"mined that the same pe"son#as "esponsible fo" both bombs

viii @!4 > D convicted of possession of a fi"ea"m by a felon #hen police discove"ed hand%un in bed"oom

#he"e he #as app"ehended D t"ied to int"oduce evidence that anothe" individual #ith #hom he #asa""ested had p"eviously been convicted of possessin% a fi"ea"m attemptin% to sho# the %un #as his andnot D3s $o evidence that the othe" a""estee3s p"evious conviction involved the same %un o" even thesame type of %un D a"%ues unde" U3S3 /3 St#/#ns, L:I F2d 1:S0 7:d /i" 1LL18 that evidence of c"imeso" bad acts committed by pe"sons othe" than D is admissible so lon% as its p"obative value is notsubstantially out#ei%hed by the "is? of unfai" p"e=udice, undue delay o" confusion of the issues- o# did D mis"ead the St#/#ns caseJ

($+ /()$ OF )$FE!E$/E > !E(!D.E 5(T '(!T+ )T ) (TT(/ED TO- )F )T OET!O& '!O'E$)T+ > )T 5).. 6E ( 404 '!O6.EM

12


13/68


TEE$ /(E

-!EE!E 404 768 > .O5E! T($D(!D OF '!OOF T($ 5(T TE '!OE/&T)O$ 5O&.D 6EE.D TO > TO O5 MO

4 N2rr2tive Inte-rit/ %Res (est2te70ooG 2t the ho0e thin- ,i00 in 102nGssho connections'i @!3$ > D cha"%ed #ith possession of "evolve" #ith oblite"ated se"ial numbe" > D claimed it #asn3t his

'"osecution intended to call his e to testify he played !ussian !oulette # he" # that %un ud%e saidshe could testify that D possessed the %un and pulled the t"i%%e" in f"ont of he", but could not name itG!ussian "ouletteH o" that he pointed it at he" Prosec*tion - =u"y mi%ht be lee"y 7thin? she #asmista?en8 of testimony that #as so va%ue@ if the %un #as pointed to#a"d he" that mi%ht be mo"econvincin% A cont"ibute to he" c"edibility by "ealiBin% it made an imp"ession on he" > diminishes p"obative value in an unfai" #ay > someone #ho #as th"eatened #ith a %un M)T "emembe" #hat itloo?ed li?e 7mi%ht have mo"e c"edibility8 but the fact that it #as not pointed at he" ma?es it seem li?eshe3s lyin% > #hy #ould she be able to identify it so #ellJJ

ii! C0i+ > #oman "unnin% c"aBy #ith tape@ civil case fo" ne%li%ence C40:, 404, 40I applies to bothc"iminal and civil cases ' #ants to offe" #itness testimony "evealin% all of the othe" thin%s she didleadin% up to the leap as p"obative of he" "ec?lessness in that specific contet D > too p"e=udicial

! A1sence o, Accident

i! @!33 > D shot his i,e9 1*t c02ied it 2s 2n 2ccident hi0e he 2s c0e2nin- his -*n '"osecutionsou%ht to admit evidence that D p"eviously used the same defense #ith the death of his fi"st #ifeCC(lso, mi%ht fit unde" doct"ine of chances > #hat is the li?elihood that this #ould happen t#ice7a"ound the bo because they a"e sayin% Gbecause he didn3t do it befo"e, he did it this timeH essentially8

ii! @!3? ; D snatched do% f"om o#ne"Ps lap inside ca" and th"e# it into oncomin% t"affic D testifies he"efleively tossed do% afte" it bit him, p"osecuto"s #e"e allo#ed to call a #itness #ho claims he p"eviously clubbed a st"ay do% to death in the navy to sho# that do%Ps c"uel death #as natu"al and p"obable "esult of D3s intentionalne%li%ent act and #as sufficient to suppo"t conviction of felony animalc"uelty )t %oes both to impeach D and establish a "elevant mate"ial fact > tossin% the do% #as maliciousand intentional ($D uncha"%ed act testified to is sufficiently simila" to the cha"%ed offense to suppo"t a"easonable infe"ence CC /ou"ts typically allo# this ?ind of evidence to come in

United St2tes v! De-eor-e

7'"osecution #ants to b"in% in evidence of p"evious ta f"aud, unde" 404 7b8 eception > not to sho# p"opensity but to sho# the Gsto"yH > fo" eample< =u"y #ould not unde"stand #hy he #as not insu"ed 7due to the : p"eviousf"audulent t"ansactions8 #ithout unde"standin% this they #ould not unde"standC

#! Doctrine o, Ch2nces > chancesodds that somethin% happens "epeatedlyJ*d-e Scr*tton)s i2-in2r/ c2rd -2e theor/ 2de 2ex v. Smith ,2o*s - =u"y could d"a# f"om thatse"ies of fo"tunate accidents the infe"ence of desi%n if someone is found #ith an ace is poc?et one time maybe anaccident, but th"ee times and it becomes suspiciousi! ReB v! Sith 7 6"ides in 6aths > man ma""ies #ealthy

#omen, d"afts thei" #ills, and in each case 7all :8 the #ives a"efound dead in the bathtub (dmissible to help =u"y d"a# aninfe"ence as to #hethe" the death #as accidental 7desi%n and plan8A help =u"y dete"mine if D Ghad a system of mu"de"in%#omen to obtain thei" money 7motive and plan8

ii! Scho02rs 2t Odds 7 Epe"ts disa%"ee - )m#in?el"ied is %ivin% c"edit thou%h that this is 40:7b8 type ofevidence #he"eas !othstein says > it3s evidence that %oes th"ou%h the bo and is no #ay a"ound it

C! HUDDLESTON STANDARD

13


14/68


3! 3ddleston v. United States %3455' ? unanimous - D indicted fo" ?no#in%ly sellin% stolen %oods 7video tapes8 ininte"state comme"ce is defense #as he didn3t ?no# they #e"e stolen ov int"oduced “s%*a! a0ts” 2$ D testimony 7not cha"%esconvictions8 of "eco"d sto"eo#ne" sayin% D sold him :S T3s t"yin% to sho# that fo"me" Tsales #e"e stolen %oodssimila" act

8D 0*a%s "# ddn&t ,n %#!0"ands# as nt st*#n8 n !#+a!d t TV8 t"#$ "a/# 0!0'%stanta* #/d#n0# n !#+a!d t

t"s

STANDARD OF 7ROOF 7RE7ONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE ? d#t#!%n#d 'nd#! ; not %uilty does not mean innocent > =u"y#asn3t satisfied of %uilt beyond a "easonable doubt 'lus, a not %uilty ve"dict can still be follo#ed up by a civil suit,#hich mi%ht conclude othe"#ise- /ou"t held 7not unanimously8 it #ould be pe"missible to use this evidence because the t"ial =ud%e =ust needs to besatisfied that %ove"nment p"oduced enou%h evidence that a =u"y, based on p"eponde"ance of evidence, could findthat D did the act #e a"e t"yin% to sho# > TE!EFO!E > /($ (DM)T > 6E/(&E O$ T!)(. TET($D(!D OF '!OOF 5O&.D (E 6EE$ 6E+O$D ( !E(O$(6.E DO&6T > E! 5E (!ET(.;)$ (6O&T PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE ; I!E! LO8ER STANDARD7 @ .*stices dissented ep"essin% the vie# that the testimony had effectively fo"ced D to defend a%ainst cha"%es fo"#hich he had al"eady been acuitted, and the"efo"e c"iminal collate"al estoppel %"ounded in the double =eopa"dyclause should have p"ohibited the p"osecution f"om int"oducin% that testimony

D PROPENSIT EVIDENCE IN SE>UAL ASSAULT CASESCOMMON LA8 < GconsentH defense made victim3s cha"acte" an issue, so D could b"in% up ictim3s seual histo"y, etc by "eputationopinion testimonyTHEN , p"osecuto"s and civil 's offe" evidence of D3s othe" acts of seual assault o" child molestation Gon any matte" to#hich it is "elevantH unde" 404

14

http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=71a63cbb5f528c309abeb0c289d24ac5&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B493%20U.S.%20342%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=28&_butInline=1&_butinfo=U.S.%20CONST.%20AMEND.%205&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzS-zSkAW&_md5=c55792d438b1aefc1be7b999b75121achttp://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=71a63cbb5f528c309abeb0c289d24ac5&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B493%20U.S.%20342%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=28&_butInline=1&_butinfo=U.S.%20CONST.%20AMEND.%205&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzS-zSkAW&_md5=c55792d438b1aefc1be7b999b75121achttp://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=71a63cbb5f528c309abeb0c289d24ac5&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B493%20U.S.%20342%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=28&_butInline=1&_butinfo=U.S.%20CONST.%20AMEND.%205&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzS-zSkAW&_md5=c55792d438b1aefc1be7b999b75121achttp://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=71a63cbb5f528c309abeb0c289d24ac5&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B493%20U.S.%20342%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=28&_butInline=1&_butinfo=U.S.%20CONST.%20AMEND.%205&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzS-zSkAW&_md5=c55792d438b1aefc1be7b999b75121ac


15/68


E $o# and now nder &24s /,1 /,/1 5/,6 specificall$ allow proof of the defendant+s sexal propensities insex offense trials 7save fede"al p"osecuto"s f"om havin% to =ustify evidence of othe" seual offenses8UAL MISCONDUCT EVIDENCE UNDER


16/68


i 7annan v. State %344?' > &nde" 404 7C41:, 414, A 41I not adopted yet8 p"io" seual misconduct #ill beadmitted if it p"oves motive, oppo"tunity, intent, plan, ?no#led%e, o" identity@ =ust not to sho# an act inconfo"mity #ith a cha"acte" t"ait tate cou"t applied GDep"aved eual )nstinct EceptionH 7)ndiana /.8 > p"io"seual behavio" is admissible as an eception a%ainst bad act cha"acte" evidence to 718 help bolste" child"en3stestimony A 728 dete" "epeat seual p"edato"s 7!ecidivism !ationale > se offende"s "epeat thei" c"imes mo"eoften than any othe" c"iminals8 )ndiana p /t "e=ected allo#in% this ?ind of evidence no# allo#ed in fede"alcou"ts unde" !ules 41: and 41I- .annan #as convicted of molestin% 14 yea" old victim afte" a =u"y hea"d testimony f"om anothe" alle%ed ictimeven thou%h the"e #e"e no cha"%es )ndiana /. "ule abandoned, but conviction affi"med, as the GimpactH of theevidence of p"io" seual behavio"s, G#as not of sufficient #ei%ht to "eui"e "eve"salHRee1er eve"ythin% is allo#ed, ecept #hich is specifically p"ohibited, namely >use of othe" c"imesbad acts to sho# D3s bad cha"acte" CCD2vis< ei%ht states have adopted a "ule euivalent to !ule 41: o" 414 7includin% )ndiana in 1LL:, no doubt in"esponse to Lannan8 $OTE Cp"io" acts a"e admissible, they still may be ecluded if the cou"t finds that thei" p"obative value is substantially out#ei%hed by the "is? of unfai" p"e=udice

ii State v. Kirsch %344' > 7f"ust"atin% case8 - bu"den is on p"osecution to p"ove the pu"pose fo" #hich it offe"sGother cries evidence D convicted of va"ious seual offenses committed a%ainst mino"s T"ial cou"t allo#edtestimony of othe" alle%ed seual assaults un"elated to the p"esent cha"%e, and alle%edly committed a%ainstva"ious othe" youn% #omen D appealed conviction /ou"t found that this evidence did violate the 4047a8 p"opensity ban@ testimony sho#ed D3s p"opensity to commit seual assaults and that D acted in confo"mity

the"e#ith, not evidence of D3s motive, intent, ando" common plan o" scheme, thus it #as imp"ope"ly admittedMotive > the "eason that nud%es the #ill and p"ods the mind to indul%e the c"iminal intent o" #hat p"ompts a D

to en%a%e in pa"ticula" c"iminal activity > tate a"%ues it sho# motive in selectin% pa"ticula" victims, butcou"t says it sho#s his desi"e fo" seual activity #ith a ce"tain type of victim, #hich is p"oof of p"opensity

Intent > evidence of othe" bad acts must be able to suppo"t a "eliable infe"ence, not dependent on D3s cha"acte"o" p"opensity, that D had the same intent on occasions of the cha"%eduncha"%ed acts The cou"t said simila"assault evidence tendin% to p"ove his %uilt of cha"%ed offenses is to see? to sho# p"opensity, pu"e andsimple@ callin% it "elevant to p"ove state of mind does not ma?e it so

Coon P02n or Schee > a patte"n o" systematic cou"se of conduct is insufficient to establish a plan, to beadmissible it must be constituent pa"ts of an ove"all scheme of #hich each of the c"imes is but a pa"t /ou"tsays these acts #e"e not constituent pa"ts of an ove"all scheme and #e"e not pa"t of the bi%%e" plan

Dissent< ma=o"ity3s na""o# "eadin% of common plan eception essentially "eui"es the tate to sho# D3s state ofmind befo"e he sta"ted on his sp"ee of c"iminal conduct, limitin% the eception to a mutually dependent se"ies of

eventsiii @!3 Ad%ss2*t$ f -!! a0ts f d%#st0 /*#n0# as 0%%n -*ans0"#%#- bc they a"e bluep"inted details

fo" cont"ol - stal?in%, assault, and p"ope"ty c"imes a"e all inte%"al to the %"and desi%niv C0i+< in openin% p"osecution says they plan to p"esent evidence of $icole3s p"evious L11 call@ you can hea" O

tal?in% and slappin% he"@ evidence of a p"io" act of domestic violenceH Motive to ?ill he" and avoid cha"%es >maybe a st"etch '"osecution then calls O a G#ife beate", abuse", cont"olle"H > defense could ob=ect bc =u"y cand"a# thei" o#n conclusions f"om L11 tape@ usin% these labels > T) ) /.()/ /(!(/TE! &E

)DE $OTE<;$O5.EDE Q &ED FO! )$DE$T)T+

2 CON(RESS SOU(HT TO ENSURE THAT FEDERAL TRIAL JUD(ES COULD ADMIT EVIDENCE OF PAST SE>UAL MISCONDUCT IN SE>UAL ASSAULT AND CHILD MOLESTATION CASES @ Feder20 R*0es: They %o a%ainst the "ule a%ainst cha"acte" evidence 7to p"ove pe"son acted in confo"mity #habits,

etc8 by allo#in% testimony that D committed othe" simila" acts 7ome people believe the Fede"al "ules have %one toofa" in favo" of the tate8i United States v. 8ardia %3445' > Re0ev2nt +ro+ensit/ evidence is 2dissi10e *nder


17/68


applies 40: and contains lan%ua%e no mo"e eplicit than 41: F&!TE!MO!E, Molina"i > said no"malevidence "ules #ill be applied 7p 20S > G)n othe" "espects, the %ene"al standa"ds of the "ules of evidence #illcontinue to applyH8

"ebuttin% a defense of t"uth, child custody > p"ove cha"acte"fitness of pa"ent, insanity > lac?ed volitionalcont"ol, ent"apment > D #as p"edisposed to commit the c"ime, self defense > victim #as violent Csome =u"isdictions allo# it as an essential element of the offense@ most say it3s not an element but "athe" a pe"tinentcha"acte" t"ait8i !ichelson v. United States %34


18/68


• /"iminal Ds a"%ue peacefulnon-violent t"aits, unli?e civil Ds #ho a"%ue ca"eful cha"acte" t"aits /a"eful pe"sons

a"e occasionally ca"eless, 5E!E( la#-abidin% citiBens typically neve" commit se"ious c"imes CFo"tunatefact of life #hich ca""ies pe"suasive p"obative fo"ce

• D3s evidence of %ood cha"acte" ca""ies little "is? of unfai" p"e=udice to the %ove"nment 7Cnote- doesn3t eplain

#hy Ds can offe" victim3s bad cha"acte" evidence bc =u"y could choose to deny the la#3s p"otection to anGunsavo"yH victim8

DISTIN(UISHIN( PROOF OF CHARACTER 404 #ould allo# defendant to b"in% in evidence of that cha"acte" t"ait- O5EE! > should the cou"t admit T) evidenceJ $O, it should not come in, but #hyJJJJ 6ecause this is evidenceof a 'E/)F)/ act, not evidence of "eputation o" opinion, if it #as "eputation o" opinion they /O&.D b"in% it in

@!3#< D claims self-defense fo" mu"de"@ du"in% t"ial victim f"iends Gth"eatenH D3s b"othe" &nde" 40I7a8 specific

instances a"en3t allo#ed )ssue is D3s "easonable fea" > not his cha"acte" > it may help sho# fea", but it3s not

necessa"y @!35< Epe"t p"offe"ed testimony that the victim3s body contained cocaine, mo"phine, and alcohol to ecessive

amounts )t3s an opinion so #hat3s the p"oblem #ith admittin% it as cha"acte" evidenceJ 40I7a8 allo#s G/ha"acte"o" a t"ait of cha"acte"H > this isn3t "eally cha"acte" evidence of decedent The"e could be an a"%ument fo"admittin% this evidence > even if #e accepted that 7#hich #e don3t8, #e find that it #ould have been ha"mlesse""o" because the"e #as othe" evidence, ample evidence to sho# the fi%ht and sho# that the victim sta"ted thefi%ht

8HAT 8OULD THE UNFAIR PREJUDICE &EJ That the p"osecution #ill ta?e such a disli?e to him

because he is on d"u%s, that they #ill "ende" a decision based upon this

EVIDENCE OF HA&IT > if you can p"ove pa"ticula" habit, you can sho# that pe"son acted acco"din% to that habit same scena"io o" stimulus a%ain and a%ain and a%ain and you" "esponse to it is al#ays &$F().)$.+ the same 7Davis E< you al#ays put you" soc?s on befo"e you put you" pants on > you do it so often and in the same #ay that it is a "outine that is not even thou%ht about8 ( DO/TO!O)$ T!O& TE )$FO ($D '!E/!)6)$ > T) ) $OT TE (ME ( '&TT)$ +O&!

18


19/68


O/; O$ TE (ME 5(+ E(/ D(+ > !E*&)!E 5(+ MO!E /O$)T)E F&$/T)O$ T($ ((6)T T(T !E*&)!E $O T)$;)$

2 =e/ ,oc*s is +redictive9 #hich is unli?e othe" p"opensity evidence, the mo"e p"edictive the behavio", the mo"e p"obative To =ustify int"oduction of habit a pa"ty must be able to sho# he epects to p"ove a sufficient numbe" ofinstances of the conduct in uestion- (dviso"y committee su%%ests that "e%ula" d"in?in% does not ualify as a habit unde" 40K 7some cou"ts allo# itthou%h8 > some a"%ue the noted su%%estion is evidence that the committee meant to etend the cate%o"y of habitonly to "elatively innocuous behavio"H- The"e is no clea" st"ai%ht line sepa"atin% habits f"om the so"t of cha"acte"-based p"opensities "e%ulated unde" 404and even if #e could decide #he"e to d"a# the ine, human behavio" "a"ely confo"ms to human cate%o"iBations

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------UNIT 3 CHAPTER < IMPEACHMENT AND CHARACTER FOR TRUTHFULNESS

I! MODES OF IMPEACHMENT

7 Error v! Lie - ( la#ye" can call a #itness mista?en by castin% doubt on he" po#e"s of pe"ception, memo"y, o" na""ativeaccu"acy 7as lon% as the evidence is "elevant unde" 401 and su"vives 40: balancin% test87 L/in- No v! Li2r< su%%estion that a #itness s *$n+ is diffe"ent than sayin% the #itness has a tendency to lieH

A! NON7CHARACTER IMPEACHMENT >althou%h mostly consistent #ith the infe"ence that the #itness is a lia", none depend on that infe"ence

718 /ont"adiction by /onflictin% Evidence 7senso"y deficiencies8< pe"ception, memo"y o" na""ation mista?es728 /ont"adiction by 'ast )nconsistent tatement< diffe"ent thin%s said befo"e and the"efo"e shouldn3t be believedon this point bc of possibly lyin%, mispe"ception, poo" memo"y, o" bad na""ative s?ills

M/ &rother)s =ee+er C0i+: Prosec*tor< Did Delbe"t tell you he ?illed his b"othe"J &rother< $o

'< 7"eadin% deposition8 *< do you ?no# ho# 5illiam diedJ (< he #as smothe"ed *< do you ?no# ho#smothe"ed him (< Delbe"t *< #hen did Delbe"t tell you he smothe"ed you" b"othe" (< this mo"nin% at the ba"n i", afte" hea"in% that do you #ant to chan%e any of you" testimonyJ- )llust"ates p"io" inconsistent statement@ not to sho# b"othe" is a lia", =ust challen%in% this pa"ticula"statement - fo" #hateve" "eason, he said one thin% ea"lie" and he is sayin% somethin% else today

7:8 Evidence of 6ias< the "elationship bet#een a pa"ty and a #itness mi%ht lead the #itness to slant in favo" of o"a%ainst a pa"ty

A Fe (ood Men C0i+: /"uise attempts to impeach the docto" by demonst"atin% bias A motive e3s not

sayin% the docto" is a bad cha"acte", but he3s attac?in% his testimony in this case to sho# that maybe he3s p"otectin% himself since he possibly confi"med a sic? man fo" se"vice This is pe"missible

&! CHARACTER 7&ASED IMPEACHMENT:

#$6 5)T$E /!ED)6).)T+ M(+ 6E (TT(/;ED 6+ ($+ '(!T+, )$/.&D)$ TE '(!T+ /(..)$ TE 5)T$E

6ad /ha"acte", especially fo" dishonesty< 7a8 '"io" /onvictions 7K0L7a8< misdemeano"s involvin% dishonesty, and anyfelony@ conviction can3t be mo"e than 10 yea"s old unless cou"t finds p"obative value substantially out#ei%hs p"e=udicial effect8@ 7b8 6ad (cts 7et"insic evidence p"ohibited8@ and 7c8 6ad !eputation 7usually fo" not tellin% thet"uth8

A! IMPEACHMENT & OPINION9 REPUTATION9 AND CROSS7E>AMINATION A&OUT PAST LIES: #$5

%A' 5)T$E /!ED)6).)T+ M(+ 6E (TT(/;ED O! &''O!TED 6+ E)DE$/E ( O')$)O$!E'&T(T)O$, 6&T &6E/T TO .)M)T(T)O$< 718 E)DE$/E M(+ !EFE! O$.+ TO /(!(/TE! FO! T!&TF&.$E O! &$T!&TF&.$E , ($D

728 E)DE$/E OF T!&TF&.$E ) (DM))6.E O$.+ (FTE! 5)T$E /(!(/TE! ( 6EE$ (TT(/;ED ($D !E6&TT(. M&T 6E )$ TE FO!M OF O')$)O$ O! !E'&T(T)O$

768 'E/)F)/ )$T($/E OF 5)T$E /O$D&/T OF ( 5)T$E, OTE! T($ /O$)/T)O$ &$DE! K0L, M(+ $OT 6E '!OED 6+ E9T!)$)/ E)DE$/E TE+ M(+, O5EE! , )$ /O&!T3 D)/!ET)O$, )F '!O6(T)E OF T!&TF&.$E O! &$T!&TF&.$E , 6E)$*&)!ED )$TO O$ /!O /O$/E!$)$ 718 5)T$EP /(!(/TE! FO! T!&TF&.$E O! &$T!&TF&.$E, O! 728 /(!(/TE! FO! T!&TF&.$E O! &$T!&TF&.$E OF ($OTE! 5)T$E ( TO 5)/ /(!(/TE! TE 5)T$E 6E)$ /!O-E9(M)$ED ( TET)F)EDCCNOTE $O TET)MO$+ E!E O'E!(TE ( ( 5()E! OF (//&EDP O! 5)T$EP '!)).EE (()$T E.F-)$/!)M)$(T)O$

19


20/68


Liit2tions on #$5%1'%3': %3' specific instances must be p"obative of 7un8t"uthfulness@ %?' and they cannot be p"oved by et"insic evidence@ %@' inui"y must su"vive 40:@ A % 8hen itness 2s on0/ one connectin- D to e2+ons to s*++ortconviction9 his re+*t2tion ,or *ntr*th,*0ness 2s 2n iss*e th2t co*0d 1e 1ro*-ht *+ *nder #$5%2' 2nd

s+eci,ic inst2nces o, *ntr*th,*0ness c2n 1e 1ro*-ht *+ *nder #$5%1'! ? 4"$ a!# # *,n+ at t"#s#

tn#ss#s "eputation In2dissi10e > he" c"edibility hasn3t been attac?ed

#$57 ON DIRECT ; OU NEED A SPECIFIC INDICENCE7 ON CROSS7 OU JUST NEED INFO OF

REPUTATION777 s+eci,ic incidence o, CONDUCT7 CAN &E CIVIL OR CRIMINAL7 RELATES TO

CHARACTER OF A 8ITNESS 2nd TRUTHFULNESS ; not 21o*t crie7 JUST 21o*t i+e2chin-

ch2r2cter o, itness ,or tr*th,*0ness %IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT A 8ITNESS7 THEN NO

"UESTION OF #$5'

#$47 2++0ies to +rior convictions

1i2s eB2+0e: /o* re200/ 0ove /o*r 1rother don)t /o* ; this o*0d 1e ADMISSA&LE ; shoin- 1i2s th2t

in this circ*st2nces he h2s 2 1i2s to sh2ve the tr*th

- UNDER #$57 THE MUST SPECIFICALL STATE REPUTATION IN RE(ARD TOTRUTHFULNESS ; 1ec2*se .*st 2sGin- 21o*ts soeone)s re+*t2tion is ins*,,icient ; h2s to -o

direct0/ to the +ro10e 2t h2nd ; 2G2 c2nt 2sG i, he is 2 o2n 1e2ter i, its 21o*t hi 1ein- 2

12d re20 est2te 2-ent

-&! IMPEACHMENT 8ITH PAST CONVICTIONS: #$4

%A' (ENERAL RULE > FO! TE '&!'OE OF (TT(/;)$ TE /(!(/TE! FO! T!&TF&.$E OF ( 5)T$E,718 E)DE$/E T(T ( 5)T$E OTE! T($ ($ (//&ED ( 6EE$ /O$)/TED OF ( /!)ME (.. 6E (DM)TTED,&6E/T TO ! &.E 40:, )F TE /!)ME 5( '&$)(6.E 6+ DE(T O! )M'!)O$ME$T )$ E9/E OF O$E +E(! &$DE! TE

20


21/68


.(5 &$DE! 5)/ TE 5)T$E 5( /O$)/TED, ($D E)DE$/E T(T ($ (//&ED ( 6EE$ /O$)/TED OF &/ ( /!)ME (.. 6E (DM)TTED )F TE /O&!T DETE!M)$E T(T TE '!O6(T)E (.&E OF (DM)TT)$ T) E)DE$/E O&T5E) )T '!E&D)/)(. EFFE/T TO TE (//&ED@ ($D728 E)DE$/E T(T ($+ 5)T$E ( 6EE$ /O$)/TED OF ( /!)ME (.. 6E (DM)TTED !E(!D.E OF TE '&$)ME$T, )F )T !E(D).+ /($ 6E DETE!M)$ED T(T ET(6.))$ TE E.EME$T OF TE /!)ME !E*&)!ED '!OOF O! (DM))O$ OF ($ (/T OF D)O$ET+ O! F(.E T(TEME$T 6+ TE 5)T$E

7&' TIME LIMIT E)DE$/E OF ( /O$)/T)O$ &$DE! T) !&.E ) $OT (DM))6.E )F ( 'E!)OD OF MO!E T($ TE$ +E(!

( E.('ED )$/E TE D(TE OF TE /O$)/T)O$ O! OF TE !E.E(E OF TE 5)T$E F!OM TE /O$F)$EME$T )M'OED FO! T(T /O$)/T)O$, 5)/EE! ) TE .(TE! D(TE, &$.E TE /O&!T DETE!M)$E, )$ TE )$TE!ET OF &T)/E, T(TTE '!O6(T)E (.&E OF TE /O$)/T)O$ &''O!TED 6+ 'E/)F)/ F(/T ($D /)!/&MT($/E &6T($T)(..+ O&T5E) )T '!E&D)/)(. EFFE/T O5EE! , E)DE$/E OF ( /O$)/T)O$ MO!E T($ 10 +E(! O.D ( /(./&.(TED E!E)$, ) $OT (DM))6.E &$.E TE '!O'O$E$T )E TO TE (DE!E '(!T+ &FF)/)E$T (D($/E 5!)TTE$ $OT)/E OF )$TE$T TO &E&/ E)DE$/E TO '!O)DE TE (DE!E '(!T+ 5)T ( F()! O''O!T&$)T+ TO /O$TET TE &E OF &/ E)DE$/E

%C' /O$)/T)O$ E)DE$/E ) $OT (DM))6.E &$DE! T) !&.E )F 718 )T ( 6EE$ TE &6E/T OF ( '(!DO$, ($$&.ME$T,/E!T)F)/(TE OF !E(6).)T(T)O$, O! OTE! E*&)(.E$T ($D T(T 'E!O$ ( $OT 6EE$ /O$)/TED OF ( &6E*&E$T /!)ME T(T 5( '&$)(6.E 6+ DE(T O! )M'!)O$ME$T )$ E9/E OF O$E +E(! , O! 728 )T ( 6EE$ &6E/T OF ( '(!DO$, ($$&.ME$T, O! OTE! E*&)(.E$T '!O/ED&!E 6(ED O$ ( F)$D)$ OF )$$O/E$/E 7T) (''.)E TO (.. /O$)/)T)O$ > &E.$).E O! $OT8

i An2to/ o, 2 M*rder 7 ail snitch testifyin% to #hat D told him #hile in =ail /"edibility *s bc of ulte"io"motives to testify ie sho"tened sentenceimmunity '"osecution can lose c"edibility #hen a #itness has s'0"a GbadH cha"acte" &sually state b"in%s it out on di"ect to loo? st"ai%htfo"#a"d and honest

D< G5hat othe" offenses have you committedJH Defense atto"ney doesn3t ?no# the ans#e", he3s p"obin% >c"oss-eamine" needs to have a %ood-faith basis fo" as?in% about p"io" conviction8itness< G"efo"m school as a ?idH -- not admissible bc K0L7d8 7K0L7d8 only comes in fo" #itnesses #ho(!E$T defendant8 says =uvenile ad=udications a"e only admissible unde" na""o# ci"cumstances This isdiffe"ent bc the uestion did not as? that '"osecuto" could as? fo" the ans#e" to be st"ic?en, but neve"thelessthe =u"y hea"d it D2vis: o* c2n dr2 2 n2i0 into the 200! o* c2n +*00 th2t n2i0 o*t9 1*t the ho0e issti00 there!

D< K p"io" convictions A he sta"ts to "ead them out li?e a lon% list to the =u"y )f you a"e the p"osecuto", this iseactly #hat you DO $OT #ant to happen no# defense %ets to play his o#n emphasis G'EE'in% Tom,)ndecent E9'Ou"eH

ii Convictions th2t do not invo0ve dishonest/ or ,20se st2teents 2re 2dissi10e9 i, %2' +*nish210e 1/ de2th 2nd %1' evidence +2sses 1*i0t7in


22/68


7ce %345 D as?ed same uestion@ ud%e concluded p"io" convictions #ould be admissible This timeD elected to testify and to miti%ate dama%e he" la#ye" b"ou%ht out p"io" convictions fi"st on di"ectup"eme /ou"t "uled I-4 that D #aived any "i%ht to complain about its admission since she b"ou%ht itup Dissent > since analysis is made no mo"e difficult by the fact that the convictions came out on di"ect"athe" than c"oss, the case doesn3t tu"n on .uce and today3s "esult #ill unfai"ly p"e=udice Ds #ho faceOhle"3s choices bc the =u"y3s assessment of D3s testimony may be affected not only by ?no#in% thec"imes, but seein% that D #as fo"thcomin% about them

#$5 2nd #$4 DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARTIES:

K0S +O& /($ (.5(+ DEFE$D 6+ (+)$ T(T TE *&ET)O$ DOE $OT O TOT!&TF&.$E- K0L- O$ TE OTE! ($D ($5E! T(T *&ET)O$ ( ( 'O.)/+M(TTE!-

K0S > $O E9T!)$)/ E)DE$/E > K0L E9T!)$)/ E)DE$/E ) (..O5ED 7&6E/T TO 40:8

K0L- second most used "ule afte" 40L7b8 > has a d"amatic impact on #hethe" o" not the defendant #illtestify > if the defendant testifies, cant appeal

c R EHA&ILITATION

718 '"osecuto"< G("en3t you in business # D3s fathe"JH 5< +es ( #itness to testify to .ouise3s "eputation fo" t"uthfulness and ve"acity is In2dissi10e "elationship ans#e" implies a bias, but c"oss conce"nin% thesefacts does not %o to he" c"edibility728 '"osecuto"< isn3t it t"ue on the day of the "obbe"y, that place you said you had lunch #as closed 5<That3s "i%ht- ) fo"%ot 5e ate at !osie3s instead ( #itness to testify to .ouise3s "eputation fo" t"uthfulnessand ve"acity is Pro1210/ In2dissi10e it "eally doesn3t %o to he" cha"acte" fo" t"uthfulness, she #as =ustmista?en and admits it7:8 '"osecuto"< Didn3t you state in you" ban? loan app you had no outstandin% debt, #hen in fact you o#edNS2; in student loans 5< ( #itness to testify to .ouise3s "eputation fo" t"uthfulness and ve"acity isAdissi10e This is an attac? on he" c"edibility > if she mis"ep"esented somethin% befo"e this #ould su%%estshe mi%ht do it a%ain748 '"osecuto" offe"s evidence that K yea"s ea"lie" she #as convicted of a"med "obbe"y and sentenced to 4yea"s in state p"ison Adissi10e &se of p"io" convictions to challen%e c"edibility is acceptable unde" K0L7a8

718 to attac? he" cha"acte" fo" t"uthfulness7I8 D calls ohnson3s nei%hbo" - he ?ne# .ouise fo" S yea"s and in his opinion, she is a t"uthful pe"sonAdissi10e +es he" c"edibility has been attac?ed > this is opinion 7could be opinion o" "eputation to"ehabilitate87K8 (fte" D3s cha"acte" #itness testified, p"osecuto" as?s on c"oss, GDo you ?no# that she lied in he" ban?loan statementJ Adissi10e * tests nei%hbo"3s "elationship #ith .ouise


23/68


uestioned about "eceipt of money implyin% a financial inducement fo" he" testimony (ll statements thatimplied the #itness #as biased and had motive to testify and as such, a"e p"ecisely the ?ind that allo# fo"testimony aimed at "ehabilitation of the #itness3s cha"acte"7 &UT %oin% to bias this #ouldn3t "eally be an attac? on he" c"edibility, so a"%uably this #as the #"on%outcome 6&T someone #ho accepts b"ibes is a dishonest pe"son and that %oes to p"obative oft"uthfulnessunt"uthfulness, but this issue #asn3t "aised he"e

d USE OF E>TRINSIC EVIDENCE ; O,,erin- Proo, > as? #itness a uestion and the #itness lies, then #hatUJfalse claimualifies as a specific instance of conduct p"obative of unt"uthfulness- K0S7b8 6ut that "ule ba"s et"insicevidence of such conduct 7Cpolicy > avoid side t"ials8728 '"osecuto"< G("en3t you in business # D3s fathe"JH 5< $o '"osecuto" ?no#s this is false, he can no# call a#itness to testify to the Gt"uthH )t %oes to bias A bias is not deemed a collate"al matte", et"insic evidence to p"ove bias is allo#ed

5hats a collate"al matte"J omethin% that is not cent"al to the caseUUUU 7e 5hethe" the li%ht #as %"een o" not in ane%li%ence ca" accident claim this 5O&.D $OT be a collate"al matte"- bc cent"al to case8


24/68


------------------------------------------------------------------Unit 3 Ch2+ter The R2+e Shie0d L2

- 5hen the fede"al "ules #e"e fi"st adopted the"e #as no F!E 412, =ust li?e the othe" ones #e loo?ed at F!E 412 is no#the fede"al "ule ve"sion of the "ape shield la# 7!ule upplement p SI8

UAL &EHAVIOR

728 E)DE$/E OFFE!ED TO PROVE AN ALLE(ED VICTIMKS SE>UAL PREDISPOSITION! #oman3s chastity"eveals an impai"ment of he" Gmo"al senseH

3 An2to/ o, 2 M*rder > D3s mu"de" defense is that he ?illed his #ife3s "apist in a =ealous "a%e@ #ife testifiesabout the "ape- ima%ine she3s a "ape victim in a "ape case befo"e 412 On c"oss, p"osecuto" as?s about p"io"divo"ce fo" inhumane t"eatment, len%th of time b# divo"ce and "e-ma""yin% 7: days8@ as?in% if she could blindlyi%no"e the catholic "eli%ion and he" oath on the "osa"y 7li?e the oath today8D< he3s a loose #oman and #e cannot believe #hat she is sayin% he"e Prosec*tion< )""elevant 7b"id%e to no#he"e8 CNote< K10 "eli%ion not admissible to sho# #itnessP c"edibility is impai"ed o" enhanced

iv An2to/ o, 2 M*rder > eactly #hat you a"e no# not allo#ed to do unde" 4128 D< ad you eve" %one the"ealone at ni%htJ 8< +es D< Did you" husband no you #e"e %oin%J 8: $o, not al#ays D< Did you eve" %o tomeet anothe" manJ e3s implyin% this G"apeH #as unchastity that #as pa"t of he" cha"acte"

24


25/68


&! THE SHIELD LA8 73465' FRE 412 %oes too fa" and is too b"oad, thele%islato"s did not clea"ly unde"stand the unde"lyin% evidentia"y concepts@ ( 4047b8 amendment #ould have been bette" - allo#in% this evidence fo" only ce"tain pu"poses<

)n "ape p"osecution, evidence of consensual seual conduct # pe"sons othe" than the accused is notadmissible to sho# victim #as mo"e li?ely to consent to se Evidence of consensual seual conduct ho#eve" may be admissible fo" othe" pu"poses ie identity, oppo"tunity, common plan o" scheme, and fo" othe" pu"poses not specifically mentioned in the "ule)n a "ape p"osecution, evidence that victim en%a%ed in consensual seual conduct is not admissible tosuppo"t the infe"ence that the pe"son is less #o"thy of belief as a #itness

/($T '&T O$ E9T!)$)/ E)DE$/E OF ( 'E/)F)/ )$/)DE$/E )F )T 404

'E!T)$E$T T!()T 5O&.D (..O5 DEFE$E TO /!O E9(M)$E )/T)M O$ TE T($D -C! THE LA8 IN FORCE

1 PAST SE>UAL &EHAVIOR 8ITH THE ACCUSED 7 J/an/08 >I1 - D and victim3s fi"st date ended in asadomasochistic assault D claims consent E2i0s t20Gin- 21o*t s2do2sochis ere eBc0*ded, but on appealcou"t held that emails f"om victim asse"tin% she #as into sadomasochism #e"e seual behavio", admissible unde" fantasies etc a"e '(!T of p"evious /O$D&/T #ith the accused and the"efo"e admissible unde" -4127b8718768CCtill sub=ect to 40: Advisor/ Coittee< 'ast seual behavio" connotes all activities that involve actual physical conduct

?! E>PLAININ( THE SOURCE OF PHSICAL EVIDENCE > !? > alle%ed attac? A victim testified that D had neve" been in he" apt befo"e that ni%ht D says he #as the"e befo"e and it #as consensual se '"osecution offe"sevidence of D3s fin%e"p"ints in the bed"oom Does fin%e"p"int evidence %o to 7b8718768J e3s claimin% in thisaccused action he #asn3t the"e > he3s not offe"in% evidence of this time bein% consensual, so 7b8718768 doesn3tapply (nd %1'%3'%A' doesn)t 2++0/ 1c he)s not +ointin- to 2n/one e0se to s2/ soeone e0se is the so*rce ;he)s s2/in- th2t)s / ,in-er+rint9 1*t it didn)t h2++en th2t ni-ht! Th*s9 tri20 .*d-e 2s incorrect to 2dit

,in-er +rints @! PAST ALLE(EDL FALSE ACCUSATIONS >

i State v. Smith %3444' >


26/68


complainant about it thou%h CThis is not li?e S%t" case #he"e D #asn3t p"ovidin% evidence of past seual behavio" 7uestionin% about a past "et"acted accusation8 D is sayin% the"e #as p"io" seual behavio" and it#as consensual >this implicates !ule 412 > 6(!!ED by 412- t"uthfulness is not a defenseU )t does notmatte" unde" 412- 7Diffe"ent than smith, the othe" one said conduct happened #hich didn3t, he"e she said itD)D happen but #asn3t consensual8

UAL &EHAVIOR

2! Proo, o, &i2s 7 Eposu"e of a motive to testify is a p"ope" and impo"tant function of the p"otected "i%ht of c"oss-eaminationOlden v. Kentck$ %3455' pe" cu"iam > Ds d"opped victim at man3s house and she claims "ape D a"%ues his

K( "i%ht to conf"ontation #as violated bc D3s evidence that victim A man #e"e in "elationship #asecluded and it #ould have sho#ed a motive fo" lyin% 7not that she as lyin%, but she had the motive to8

77 I, Pro, (o2n)s r*0e > admitted unde" he" p"oposed "ule #ould be a 404768 type "ule > offe"ed not asevidence of victim3s p"io" conductseual behavio", but to sho# he" possible motive to lie

77 Note: &oth Olden 2nd "avis 7holdin% D had "i%ht to conf"ont p"osecution3s chief #itness # uestionsabout his p"obationa"y status to sho# #itness motive fo" denyin% his o#n %uilt8 p"otect D3s K( "i%ht toc"oss an accuso" to sho# #itness bias bc bias-based impeachment su%%ests a #itness has a motive to lie nt"s 0as#, not that he has a bad cha"acte" fo" t"uthfulness 6&T no p /t opinion add"esses if the/onf"ontation /lause also p"otects D3s "i%ht to ma?e a %ene"al, cha"acte"-based attac? on a p"osecution#itness3s c"edibility The constitutional status of defense attac?s on accuse"s3 t"uthful cha"acte" #ill va"yf"om ci"cuit to ci"cuit S## ci"cuit splits on tetboo? p :2L-:1

AR(UMENT DOESN)T MA=E SENSE &C IT IS SE>UAL &EHAVIOR ; TREATS IT LI=E IST ; (OIN( TO HAVE TO &E E>CEPTION OR CONSTITUTIONAL

E>CEPTION

! &r/2nt)s Acc*ser- D claims #oman had se #ith 2 p"osecution #itnesses and had inte"cou"se only hou"safte" Gencounte"H &r/2nt 2nts to 2dit %3' her seB*20 2cts ith to sho# he" ?no#led%e, intent,common plan, etc #ith "espect to consentin% ounds li?e 4047b8, but 412 %ove"ns, so ba""ed %?' HerseB*20 re02tionshi+s ith ? +rosec*tion itnesses /ould be allo#ed as motive 7#hy she came up #iththe sto"y8 o" bias 7but a #oman is li?ely %oin% to ?no# the people she b"o?e do#n to about the "ape8@ and%@' Her seB*20 cond*ct 2,ter the 200e-ed r2+e > admissible to "ebut a contention by p"osecuto"s that the#oman #as dia%nosed #ith post-t"aumatic st"ess diso"de" 7assumes that p"osecuto"s a"e %oin% to offe"evidence of 'D > ?ind of p"ematu"e8

D2h0i2 LithicG9 The Shield that &ailed %?$$


27/68


7 Pro, (20ven)s


28/68


UNIT ?: R ELIA&ILIT CHAPTER # COMPETENC OF 8ITNESSES

) 8ITNESS COMPETENC#$

3

(ENERAL R ULE OF COMPETENC - EE!+ 'E!O$ ) /OM'ETE$T TO 6E ( 5)T$E E9/E'T ( OTE!5)E '!O)DED )$ TEE !&.E HO8EVER , )$ /)). (/T)O$ ($D '!O/EED)$, 5)T !E'E/T TO ($ E.EME$T OF ( /.()M O! DEFE$E ( TO5)/ T(TE .(5 &''.)E TE !&.E OF DE/))O$, TE /OM'ETE$/+ OF ( 5)T$E (.. 6E DETE!M)$ED )$ (//O!D($/E 5)T T(TE .(5

7CCEE!+ > T(T&TE ) E!+ 6!O(D@ E9/E'T ( OTE!5)E '!O)DED > 6&T E9/E'T)O$ (!E E!+ FE58#$

?

LAC= OF PERSONAL = NO8LED(E - ( 5)T$E M(+ $OT TET)F+ TO ( M(TTE! &$.E E)DE$/E ) )$T!OD&/ED &FF)/)E$T TO &''O!T ( F)$D)$ T(T TE 5)T$E ( 'E!O$(. ;$O5.EDE OF TE M(TTE! E)DE$/E TO '!OE 'E!O$(. ;$O5.EDE M(+, 6&T $EED $OT, /O$)T OF TE 5)T$EP O5$ TET)MO$+ T) !&.E ) &6E/T TO TE '!O))O$ OF !&.E 0:, !E.(T)$ TO O')$)O$ TET)MO$+ 6+ E9'E!T 5)T$EE

#$

@

OATH OR AFFIRMATION - 6EFO!E TET)F+)$, EE!+ 5)T$E (.. 6E !E*&)!ED TO DE/.(!E T(T TE 5)T$E 5).. TET)F+ T!&TF&..+, 6+ O(T O! (FF)!M(T)O$ (DM)$)TE!ED )$ ( FO!M /(./&.(TED TO (5(;E$ TE 5)T$EP/O$/)E$/E ($D )M'!E TE 5)T$EP M)$D 5)T TE D&T+ TO DO O

#3

$

R ELI(IOUS &ELIEFS OR OPINIONS - E)DE$/E OF TE 6E.)EF O! O')$)O$ OF ( 5)T$E O$ M(TTE! OF !E.))O$ ) $OT (DM))6.E FO! TE '&!'OE OF O5)$ T(T 6+ !E(O$ OF TE)! $(T&!E TE 5)T$EP /!ED)6).)T+ ) )M'()!ED O! E$($/ED

J*d-es deterine testioni20 co+etence: hether %3' #itness has +erson20 Gno0ed-e of the matte"s of testimony@2nd hether %?' the #itness dec02res, by oath o" affi"mation, that she #ill testi,/ tr*th,*00/

$o mental "eui"ements

( COMMON LA8 8ITNESSES COMPETENC > lots of competency "ules dictatin% #ho could and could not testify<ecluded pa"ty3s spouses, pe"sons #ith a financial inte"est in the case, convicted felons, and atheists 'u"pose< to ?eepf"om the stand anyone #hose temptation o" inclination to lie #as %"eate" than the no"m

6 8ITNESS COMPETENC ISSUES ARE RARE MOST OLD 8ITNESS COMPETENC LA8S ARE (ONE i H/+nosis 7 To p"event D3s testimony based on hypnotically "ef"eshed memo"y, state #ould have to sho#

testimony #as so un"eliable that the eclusion is =ustifiedii Arises ost coon0/ ith /o*n- chi0dren - cou"ts can eclude unde" 40: if p"obative value is #ea? bc child

cannot tell t"uth f"om falsehood F2ctors th2t deterine 2 chi0d)s co+etenc/ v2r/ ,ro .*risdiction to .*risdiction9 1*t -ener200/ inc0*de


29/68


t"eason and sentenced to death, but it #asn3t ca""ied out e "emained in =ail until 1K1K

II! DEFININ( HEARSA ; out of cou"t statement 7o" asse"tive conduct8 offe"ed in evidence to p"ove the t"uth of thematte" asse"ted@ usually ba""ed because of the impo"tance of %3' =u"y3s need to obse"ve spea?e"3s demeano"@ %?' D3s K("i%ht to conf"ont accuse"@ and %@' ability of c"oss to p"obe the #itness CLIP ; The"e #e"e sc"eams do#n by the la?e 5hen did you hea" themJ ) didn3t hea" them myself ome tou"ists

f"om Ohio hea"d them and told me about them the net day PRO&LEM< it involves the c"edibility, not necessa"ily of the#itness testifyin%, but "athe", of this out of cou"t decla"ant

5$

3

TE FO..O5)$ DEF)$)T)O$ (''.+ &$DE! T) (!T)/.E<%A' STATEMENT - 718 ($ O!(. O! 5!)TTE$ (E!T)O$ O! 728 $O$E!6(. /O$D&/T OF ( 'E!O$, )F )T ) )$TE$DED 6+ TE 'E!O$ ( ($ (E!T)O$%&' DECLARANT - ( 'E!O$ 5O M(;E ( T(TEME$T%C' HEARSA - ( T(TEME$T, OTE! T($ O$E M(DE 6+ TE DE/.(!($T 5).E TET)F+)$ (T TE T!)(. O! E(!)$, OFFE!ED )$ E)DE$/E TO '!OE TE T!&T OF TE M(TTE! (E!TED

5$

?

E(!(+ ) $OT (DM))6.E E9/E'T ( '!O)DED 6+ TEE !&.E O! 6+ OTE! !&.E '!E/!)6ED 6+ TE &'!EME /O&!T '&!&($T TO T(T&TO!+ (&TO!)T+ O! 6+ (/T OF /O$!E

IF HEARSA PRO&LEM: AS= T8O "UESTIONS:3! 8HAT IS THE EVIDENCE &EIN( OFFERED TO PROVE

A! NOT TO PROVE THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER

%3' 8ords O,,ered to Prove E,,ect on the Listener < p"esent #itness testifyin% about effect A she is available to testobse"veE>AMPLE: S#*f D#f#ns# 8 t#st%n$ t s" s%#n# "ad !#asn t f#a! D at t"# t%# f t"# atta0, s nt "#a!sa$7 Ad2)s Ri1 C0i+ ; 5oman ?illed husband testifyin% that he told he", Gbite you" ton%ue fatso ) don3t #ant to have

to sha?e you" headH It d#sn&t d#-#nd n t"# t!'t"6 2't "#! -#!0#-tn f t37 6!# 8et) > D cha"%ed #ith felony theft afte" ille%ally sellin% ho"ses he believed she #as sellin% ho"ses fo" the

o#ne" Nt t"# t!'t" f n#!&s !ds6 2't "#! 2#*#f3%?' Le-200/ O+er2tive 8ords %Ver120 Acts' - le%al "i%ht o" duty t"i%%e"ed o" offense caused ie G) doH > at alta" is a

ma""ia%e@ G)3ll ?ill youH is a th"eat, A Ghe3s a thiefH can be slande"7 6!5 %hite 7Kth /i" 20048 > D convicted of ma?in% a false dec fo"m 5hite #anted his f"iend to testify that D told

him G) have mo"e items to decla"eH )t should have been admitted as a le%ally ope"ative statement%@' Inconsistent St2teents O,,ered to I+e2ch - simply offe"ed to sho# inconsistency bet#een t#o statements at diff

times% Testifies that she as?ed D about "eplacin% his bi?e and he "ubbed his thumb

and fin%e" to%ethe" 7money8Decla"ant3s o#n statements can be hea"say, especially if not unde" oath, demeano" is not obse"ved, A not sub=ect to c"oss 6ut

it can still fall unde" an eception/ou"ts split on machines as hea"say< $u"se d"e# blood A compute" analyBed it /ompute" p"intout, but medical staff

pe"fo"med test and input info Ctates often "ule machines must meet ce"tain standa"dsUnited States v. %hite - 4th /i"cuit said not hea"say bc G"a# data is not statements of ope"ato"s, but "athe" the machines

Bllcoming v. ;ew !exico %?$33' > p /t held admission of lab "epo"t # no ope"ato" testimony #as a violation of K("i%ht of conf"ontation C' IL "uleboo? B'**0%n+ case - )f #itness testifies to #hat someone else said out of cou"t -violates K(

Co*rt TV C0i+ 7 5o"? place ha"assment suit Testimony offe"ed to sho# complaints put /o on notice )f offe"ed

to establish the t"uth of the matte", then hea"say6!6 ; Schwar) %?d Cir! ?$$?' - 2 office"s cha"%ed #ith civil "i%hts violation fo" assaultin% victim@ 1 pled %uilty@

othe" is on t"ial The D that faced t"ial no# alle%es ineffective assistance bc othe" D told his la#ye" that he#ould testify and ta?e him out of the incident and his la#ye" did nothin% #ith it D must sho# 718 la#ye"#as deficient A 728 but fo" deficiency "esult #ould3ve been diff /t "eve"sed - the possibility of missin%some c"itical evidence is enou%h

2 Did the dec02r2nt 2ssertco*nic2te the ,2ct 7Cnote decla"ant3s state of mind is impo"tant87 I+0ied - G.au"a ou%ht to %ive that do% a bathH V natu"ally conclude that the do% is di"ty

29


30/68


7 Indirect - Deceased3s statement that she spent all mo"nin% # a"chitect plannin% he" "eti"ement home he late" dies of d"u% ove"dose V used to p"ove she didn3t commit suicide

i F20Gnor9 He2r7S2/ R*0e 2s 2 See7Do R*0e: Evidence o, Cond*ct %34#3' > a"%ues fo" #hat late" becameS017a8 hea"say is o"al#"itten asse"tion o" non-ve"bal conduct f intended as an asse"tion

7 Tr2,,ic Li-ht EB2+0e< d"ive" is behind a t"uc? and cannot see the li%ht, but #hen the t"uc? movesfo"#a"d so does the d"ive" This is a nn8/#!2a* a0tn f t"# t!'0, d!/#!6 nt nt#nd#d as a stat#%#nt6 "sa0tn t %/# f!a!d -!#s'%a2*$ 2#0a's# t"# *+"t as +!##n7 %right v. Tatham 71S:S8 EB2+0e< lette" offe"ed into evidence that as?ed D 7mental incapacity is an issue8to handle somethin% fo" the 'a"ish )t #as "uled a non-ve"bal act that #as not hea"say because the *#tt#!!t#! dd nt nt#nd t sa$ “t"s %an s san#6” t as .'st "s t"'+"ts at t"# t%# t"at t"# %an as

0%-#t#nt t "and*# t"# -!-s#d %att#! 7no intent to be an asse"tion8 C2se h/+o almost as famous as the case< Doc?#o"?e"3s testimony that the captain, afte" eaminin%

eve"y pa"t of it, emba"?ed on it #ith his family is ci"cumstantial, not hea"say and it %oes to sho# his belief that it #as sea#o"thy, not that he #as asse"tin% it #as sea#o"thy

Contr2sted ith: an event #hen the chai"man of the atomic ene"%y commission too? his family to the

site of a "ecent nuclea" test accident is diffe"ent because he is intended this action to asse"t the sites safenatu"e

ii A Fe (ood Men C0i+ > O't8f80'!t na0tns t"at "a/# n nt#nt t 2# an ass#!tn 0an 2# ad%tt#d as a nn8

"#a!sa$ stat#%#nt3 Cr*ise > t"yin% to say victim #asn3t bein% t"ansfe""ed, unli?e /olonel is attemptin% to state, because the"e #e"e no phone calls and none of his ba%s #e"e pac?ed This is all a"%umentative A the"e is noadmission of phone "eco"ds into evidence but all that not#ithstandin%, this is out-of-cou"t inactions that a"e non-hea"say

iii! Mir2c0e on @- pilin% lette"s add"essed to anta /lause to sho# the post office accepts them thusthei" actions sho# anta eists - Nn8"#a!sa$ sn0# a0tns a!# nt nt#nd#d as an ass#!tn

iv! 8hen M2d Co dise2se 2s on hi-h 20ert9 Press re+orted th2t A-ric*0t*re Minister 2te 2 h21*r-er ith

his d2*-hter 2nd s2id this is de0icio*s .iti%ant offe"s "epo"te"3s testimony of events T"s s an ass#!tn2#0a's# "#&s t!$n+ t sa$ t"at t"# 2##f s saf# t #at ?"#a!sa$

v! Scott Peterson Tri20, '"osecuto" a"%ued D3s failu"e to tell #ife about boat 7theo"y-he dumped he" body in the boat8 sho#ed he bou%ht it as pa"t of his mu"de" plan Testimony of #ife3s siste" A f"iend to testify she neve"mentioned it /hain< 718 it #ould be natu"al fo" husband to tell #ife he bou%ht a ne# boat@ 728 must be asec"etiveevil pu"pose behind buyin% the boat T"s s 2as0a**$ s*#n0#6 "#! fa*'!# t t#** t"#% asn&t #1a0t*$ a0%%'n0atn6 s"# 0'*dn&t -ss2*$ "a/# t#nd#d t 0%%'n0at# an$t"n+ f t"# “0%%'n0atn” as s"#

ddn&t ,n ? t"s s nt "#a!sa$vi! Hote0 Cr2cG Coc2ine C2se ove"nment offe"ed documents #ith an epe"t #itness3s testimony to sho# he had

?no#led%e of ho# to ma?e these d"u%s '"osecuto" isn3t offe"in% this to p"ove the in%"edients"ecipe fo" c"ac?cocaine, they a"e t"yin% to p"ove his ?no#led%e > ?no#led%e alone > not hea"say

vii! A,ter 1ein- shot9 D ,ired -*n into 200e/, testimony of that is p"obably not hea"say S"tn+ nt a**#$ t %a,#a %a!, and d -#!sn " s"t "% 0'*d 2# an ass#!tn6 2't s n# t"n,n+ t"at 0*#a!*$ aft#! 2#n+ s"t5 nt*,#*$ t"at "# nt#nd#d t 0%%'n0at# an$t"n+ "#!#, mo"e of a "eaction

viii! Po0ice on +reises o, s*s+ected -210in- site, pic?ed up phone, spea?e" t"ied to place a bet, p"osecuto" #antedthis in evidence to p"ove the p"emises #e"e a %amblin% den N nt#nt n 2#"a*f f 0a**#! t d t"# -*a0#5 ff0#!s n stand t#stf$n+ t 0a** and # 0an t#st "s 0!#d2*t$

iB! IDs D 2,ter 1ein- ,2t200/ shot -“4"$ dd $' sta2 %#” 8 0'*d 0%# n as an #10#-tn t "#a!sa$? d#ntf0atn5 f dn# *'dan+!*$ t %a$ "a/# 2##n nt#nd#d as an ass#!tn

B! A,ter 1ein- 2rrested ,or c2shin- 2 sto0en checG , anothe" %uy #al?s by and D #hispe"s, G) didn3t tell them

anythin% about youH 4"s-#!n+ %+"t nt "a/# 2##n nt#nd#d as an ass#!tn Bi! D on tri20 ch2r-ed ith +oisonin- her orGin-7c02ss eB70over he claimed he f"amed he" /"o#n #ants to

ente" victim3s dia"y to sho# she met #ith him and he #as not feelin% #ell afte" H#&s nt an a00*a%#d -#tnt#ndn+ f! t"#!s t !#ad-'2*s" "s da!$3 It %+"t d#-#nd n "#!# "# ,#-t t"# da!$ &nless somethin%indicates he "eally intended to communicate somethin%, it #ould not be hea"say C2: =ud%es felt dia"y #asinadmissible@ mo"e of a conce"n of slippe"y slope

30


31/68


a HEARSA FLO8CHART:

)f offe"ed to p"ove )f offe"ed to p"oveThe t"uth of the matte" effect on listene"obse"ve"3s belief

)f offe"ed to p"ove the out-of cou"t if not an asse"tion

spea?e"s intent to communicateasse"t

$ot hea"sayea"say

)f admissible unde" eceptiono" ecluded f"om hea"say "ule

)nadmissible 7S028

40:'ossibly admissible

31


32/68


II! E>CEPTIONS TO THE HEARSA R ULE 7 &ROAD CATE(ORIES:

3! P2st St2teents o, 8itnesses 7 ome schola"s thin? a#itness3s o#n past statements should al#ays be eempt bc demeano" is obse"vable A #itness can be c"ossed, butF!Es say they a"e mostly hea"say bc if not then o"%aniBed pa"ties #ould ma?e "eco"ds of inte"vie#s #ith p"ospective #itnesses sub=ect to no c"oss at that time #3@ v! 5$3%d'%3'%2': C0i+ - a #oman claimed to be"obbed@ cab d"ive", #ho d"ove he" home f"om the c"ime,testifies on di"ect that he" bf paid him, but on c"oss,defense attempts to impeach him bc he p"eviously told police she paid his fa"e I, o,,ered *nder #3@9 7decla"antmust have tesitifed A la#ye" must have %ood faith beliefof past statement8 then it c2n)t 1e *sed 2s evidence o,the tr*th 2nd o*0d not 1e 200oed in c0osin-!

R2tion20e< pe"son #asn3t in cou"t, no obse"vation ofdemeano", and #asn3t sub=ect to c"oss, th*s 2 co*nter72r-*ent in this scena"io is no# the pe"son is unde" oathand sub=ect to obse"vation of his demeano" I, o,,ered *nder R*0e 5$3%d'%3'%A' 2s s*1st2ntive

evidence9 7decla"ant must testify and be sub=ect to c"ossand the statement must be inconcistent and %iven unde"oath at a p"io" p"oceedin% o" deposition8 the .*r/ 2/consider the ,or the tr*th CS017d87187(8 has mo"est"in%ent standa"ds fo" admission, than !ule K1:3simpeachment standa"ds

2! R*0e #3@: Inconsistent St2teents O,,ered to I+e2ch%A' ) $ E9(M)$)$ ( 5)T$E /O$/E!$)$ )E! '!)O! T(TEME$T, 5ETE! 5!)TTE$ O! $OT, )T $EED $OT 6E O5$ $O! D)/.OED TO TE 5)T$E (T T(T T)ME, 6&T O$ !E*&ET (.. 6E O5$D)/.OED TO O''O)$ /O&$E.

7 The cross7eB2iner 2/ 2cce+t the itness) deni20 o, the +rior st2teent or introd*ce eBtrinsic evidence

7documentothe" pe"son3s testimony #ho ?no#s about statement8 Distinction: #$5 #on3t allo# a la#ye" toint"oduce et"insic evidence to impeach if #itness denies it, but this does not apply to K1:7a8

%1' E9T!)$)/ E)DE$/E OF ( '!)O! )$/O$)TE$T T(TEME$T 6+ ( 5)T$E ) $OT (DM))6.E &$.E 5)T$E ) (FFO!DED ($ OPPO2TU;*T


33/68


subte"fu%e

b R*0e 5$3%d'%3'%A': Inconsistent St2teents O,,ered S*1st2ntive0/

( statement is not hea"say ifW X 7!! stat#%#nt 2$ tn#ssY The decla"ant testifies at the t"ial o" hea"in% and iss*1.ect to cross7eB2in2tion conce"nin% the statement, and the statement is 7(8 inconsistent #ith thedecla"antPs testimony, and #as -iven *nder o2th sub=ect to the penalty of pe"=u"y at a t"ial, hea"in%, o" othe"

p"oceedin%, o" in a deposition- )f the p"io" statement #as made *nder o2th at a p"oceedin% 7li?e a %"and =u"y hea"in%8, it may beint"oduced substantively 7fo" p"oof of #hat is asse"ts@ ie sho# evidence of D3s %uilt8- )f #itness says she doesn3t "emembe"3 he" p"evious statement, its not technically inconsistent, but the =ud%e may "ule it is in a D caseCC!eco%niBe the diffe"ences bet#een !ule K1: 7impeachment8 A "ule S017d87187(8 7substantive8

i 6!34 >ictim id3d pe"son involved at "and u"y hea"in% and said he hit he", but at t"ial she said she "an into adoo" '"osecuto" can offe" the p"evious statement into evidence bc it #as an inconsistent statement #as %ivenunde" oath Gsub=ect to penalties of pe"=u"yH S017d87187(8 R*0e1ooG +! ??$ ; con,erence re+ort > no option toc"oss any #itnesses in f"ont of the %"and =u"y, but the "epo"t doesn3t say anythin% about c"oss

ii 6!?$ ; ame facts as above, but no# #itness says ) can3t "emembe" - not "eally inconsistent Owens > p"ison%ua"d had lac? of memo"y, but #as sub=ect to c"oss "e%a"dless of memo"y8 CDifficult to ?no# if memo"y lossclaim is t"ue o" false so if sub=ect to c"oss it could %o eithe" #ay

c 5$3%d'%3'%&': P2st Consistent St2teents( statement is not hea"say ifW the decla"ant testifies at the t"ial o" hea"in% and is s*1.ect to cross7eB2in2tion conce"nin% the statement, and the statement is consistent #ith the decla"antPs testimony and is offe"ed to RE&UT 2neB+ress or i+0ied ch2r-e a%ainst the decla"ant of "ecent fab"ication o" imp"ope" influence o" motive

- Prior consistent st2teent any statement by a #itness made out of cou"t befo"e the #itness3s testimony that"einfo"ces o" suppo"t the testimony This does not need to be made unde" oath in a p"oceedin%

- '"io" consistent statements by a #itness may be int"oduced substantively if impeachment effo"ts have su%%ested that the#itness3s testimony #as a "ecently c"eated lie o" #as influenced by imp"ope" motives 7on0/ to re1*t s+eci,ied 2tt2cGs onthe #itness3s in-cou"t testimony8

Prior consistent st2teent any statement by a #itness made out of cou"t befo"e the #itness3s testimony that

"einfo"ces o" suppo"t the testimony This does not need to be made unde" oath in a p"oceedin%

'"io" consistent statements by a #itness may be int"oduced substantively if impeachment effo"ts have su%%ested

that the #itness3s testimony #as a "ecently c"eated lie o" #as influenced by imp"ope" motives 7on0/ to re1*t

s+eci,ied 2tt2cGs on the #itness3s in-cou"t testimony8

i An2to/ o, 2 M*rder C0i+ > lieutenant on t"ial fo" mu"de", claimin% tempo"a"y insanity@ p"osecuto" #itnesstestifies about a =ail house convo #hen D said G) fooled eve"yoneH (dmissible as an admission by pa"tyopponent At tri209 on cross< as?s ho# he came to testify implyin% deal #ith the D(3s officeimplyin% it#ould please his t"oubles if he d"eamed up this sto"y to please the D(H (dmissible as biasmotive to testify6ut suppose p"osecuto" #ants to put on Mille"3s mothe" to say that he called he" f"om the =ail and "elated thissame conve"sation The condition > the p"io" statement had to be made befo"e the alle%ed motive #ould havea"isen o #hat #e #ould be conce"ned #ith he"e is the timin% of the meetin% #ith the D(3s officeCC)t is a"%uable that anyone in =ail has a motive to please the D( f"om the moment they a"e in the"e

ii Tome %344' ; '"io" consistent statement can only be int"oduced if the p"oponent sho#s %3' the itness)s testion/ h2s 1een 2tt2cGed 2s recent0/ ,21ric2ted o" influenced by motive to tell a lie and %?' th2t theitness 2de the +rior st2teent 1e,ore the tie o, the 200e-ed ,21ric2tion o" befo"e alle%ed motive to lie

a"ose R2tion20e< statements that occu""ed befo"e the alle%ed fab"ication a"e mo"e t"ust#o"thy Mothe" #as not%"anted he" "euest fo" sole custody in 3SL@ in 3L0 she contacted autho"ities #ith alle%ations that he" dau%hte" saiddad seually abused he" D a"%ued the mom lied about the cha"%e to maintain custody /hild testified, but #ouldnot ans#e" *3s on c"oss ove"nment p"oduced K #itnesses #ho testified about out of cou"t statements thechild made about D3s seual assault /t admitted them unde" S017d8718768 bc they "ebutted implicit cha"%es thatchild3s testimony #as motivated by a desi"e to live #ith he" mothe" G( consistent statement that p"edates themotive is a sua"e "ebuttal of the cha"%e that the testimony #as cont"ived as a conseuence of that motiveH

d 5$3%d'%3'%C': St2teents o, Identi,ic2tion( statement is not hea"say ifW X 7!! stat#%#nt 2$ tn#ssY The decla"ant testifies at the t"ial o" hea"in% and is s*1.ect to

33


34/68


cross7eB2in2tion conce"nin% the statement, and the statement is one of identification of a person made after P42C4*9*;8 the person

? ( p"io" )D by a p"esently testifyin% #itness is not hea"say, as lon% as the )D is made afte" the #itness pe"ceived the pe"ceived Perceived Q Gaa!# f”5 d#sn&t !#'!# t"at t"# tn#ss a0t'a**$ SA4 t"# -#!sn - A itness)s o*t o, co*rt st2teent identi,/in- 2 +erson is 2dissi10e 2s s*1st2ntive evidence o, identi,ic2tion i,%3' the itness is +resent0/ testi,/in- 2nd %?' is 2v2i0210e ,or cross7eB2in2tion!

7 !ationale< )D3s of ppl made p"io" to t"ials a"e li?ely to be mo"e accu"ate than )D3s made du"in% testimony, so they

should not be ecluded f"om substantive use 7close" to the time of the event8i C0i+ ; 5oman loo?s at line up and ids he" mu%%e", she eventually pic?s Z: At tri20 she "epeats it - clea"ly

admissible as an id I, she s2id9 no I don)t ree1er9 th2t o*0dn)t 2,,ect testion/ 1c 2n ID 2de short0/2,ter 2tt2cG 2/1e is ore re0i210e th2n hen itness testi,ies 2t tri20 1ec2*se eor/ o, 2 ,2ce ,2des in

tie! P0*s over tie 2 +erson)s 2++e2r2nce i-ht ch2n-e %i!e! 0ose ei-ht or -ro 2 1e2rd'!

ii Owens %3455' - '"ison %ua"d beaten up@ identified his attac?e" #hile at the hospital e late" lost "ecollection ofthe attac? ictim #as allo#ed to testify to his hospital )D A itness in 2 criin20 tri20 2/ testi,/ 21o*t 2ne2r0ier ID even if he can no longer testif$ as to the 'asis of that *" The /onf"ontation /lause only "eui"es theoppo"tunity fo" effective c"oss, not #hateve" so"t of c"oss D mi%ht #ant e"e, D could have attac?ed victim onthe basis of his fo"%etfulness Gub=ect to c"oss-eaminationH does not on its face "eui"e mo"e CNote< /t ismo"e li?ely to let in hea"say statements #hen #itness is available fo" c"oss, &UT the a"%ument can be made that#hen #itness can3t "emembe", he3s not "eally sub=ect to EFFECTIVE c"oss-eam 7/ant "eally p"obe #hethe" )D#as %ood o" not8

iii 6!?3 ; abuse claims made to nu"se, can she testify about the victim3s statementsJOft#n d#ntf0atn s *,# t"#0*- a2/#6 a *n# '-6 2't t 0an 2# a /#!2a* ID !6 as "#!#6 a 0%%#nt d#ntf$n+ a2's#! nd!#0t*$6 “,ds dad

0a%# /#! d!'n, and "t %# t" an -#n "and3” ? n *%tatn n not allo#ed to bolste" o#n case8

E>< ( sues 6 fo" dama%es in an accident caused by 6 )f 6 said afte" the accident, G) didn3t see the li%htH ( canint"oduce that statement as a basis fo" concludin% 6 did not see the li%ht- /onfession of a c"im D is admissible, but not if it is involunta"y- uilty plea is admissible as an admission, but still "eui"es 40: balancin% C%uilty plea to mino" offense no contest

plea not admissible

i! Co*rt TV C0i+ 7 6abysitte"3s t"ial fo" sha?in% infant to death@ Office" testified, he uestioned he" "i%ht afte" theact and she desc"ibed the baby as fussy and said the"e bad days #hen she couldn3t %et the baby to stop c"yin%T"s s D&s n stat#%#nt ad%ss2*# t s" -ss2*# %t/#

ii! 6!33 > ' claims she couldn3t #o"? up to he" full potential bc of in=u"ies@ D #anted to offe" evidence that she billed clients fo" lots of hou"s afte" the accident T"#s# a!# "#! n stat#%#ntsass#!tns s t"#$ '*d 2#ad%ss2*# a+anst "#! 0*a% t"at s"# asn&t a2*# t !, '- t "#! f'** -t#nta*3 BUT t"#$ '*d 2# "#a!sa$ fff#!#d n "#! fa/! R2tion20e< most statements offe"ed a%ainst an opponent #e"e a%ainst opponent3s inte"est#hen she made them and the inability to c"oss eamine decla"ant doesn3t eist #hen she is the decla"ant

iii! 6!3? ; OJ Si+son s2id9 t2Ge / 10ood test 2nd e i00 see 7 /#!2a* a0t s"n+ 0nfd#n0# n "s

nn0#n0#6 t"'s t"s as an ass#!tn "0" '*d t#nd t %a,# t"s "#a!sa$

1! 5$3%d'%?'%&': ADOPTIVE ADMISSIONS

TE T(TEME$T ) OFFE!ED (()$T ( '(!T+ ($D ) 768 ( T(TEME$T OF 5)/ TE '(!T+ ( M($)FETED ($ (DO'T)O$ O! 6E.)EF )$ )T T!&TE>< omeone told 6 afte" the c"ash, G+ou didn3t stop fo" the li%ht,H and 6 said G)3m so""y, ) didn3t,H 63s ans#e" 7to%ethe"# uestion8 #ould be an adoptive admission- Often in police inte""o%ations yes "esponses and head nods a"e t"eated as adoptive admissions of uestion

34


35/68


insu"e" implies D bu"ned the insu"ed item@ he "esponds, G)3m a poo" manH (n

employee #ho #itnessed the conve"sation %ives the testimony Prosec*tion< 5hen he made this accusation to D#as it deniedJ 8< $o, he claimed he #as a poo" pe"son P< 5hat tone of voice did he haveJ 8< uilty P< hiso#n statement bein% offe"ed a%ainst him to sho# his admission CCThe last uestion is ob=ectionable thou%h

ii 6!3@ > GDo you #ant a I0JH (n unde"cove" office" unde"stood this to mean a fifty-dolla" "oc? of c"ac? (ndas?ed to buy anothe" "oc? D told him he had one, but he could %et anothe" f"om his buddy Then D #ent to a ba%unde" a bench, "emoved a la"%e plastic ba%, #hich contained 1: %"ams of SL[ pu"e c"ac? N '#stn D as at*2#!t$ t !#s-nd and fa*#d t6 2't "at a2't K f t"# t#st ? dd "# "#a! and 'nd#!stand t"# 0%%#nt t"at s"#

%ad# O! = f t"# t#st ? dd t"# 0!0'%stan0#s n#0#ssa!*$ 0a** f! a !#s-ns#iii 5itnessed he" fathe" "ape and ?ill he" f"iend usan he "ep"essed it and yea"s late" it flooded bac? '"osecution

a"%ues in closin% that D had the oppo"tunity to defend himself "#n s"# /st#d "% n .a* and nst#ad a** "# ddas -nt t a .a* nt0# s+n “T"s statn %a$ 2# %nt!#d3” 4"at d#s t"at t#** $' H# d#s nt d#n$ a

fa*s# a00'satn f %'!d#!3 e #as convicted, but n a--#a* t"# C'!t f'nd t"at 'ecase he was exercising hisright to silence so it cannot 'e sed against him

/ 5$3%D'%?'%C' %D': STATEMENTS OF A(ENTS > usually "eui"es independent evidenceTE T(T

Documents

Evicence Outline 1