This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Outlines Evidence Outlines

Evidence Outline 50+ Pp. Outline

Updated Evidence Outline 50+ Pp. Notes

Evidence Outlines

Evidence

Approximately 56 pages

Evidence with Mike Gottesman...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Evidence Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Evidence – Gottesman

FRE 606- What juries can do after trials and after deliberation 2

Relevance – FRE 401 and 402 2

Conditional Relevance - FRE 104(a) (b), 403 2

Rule 403 – Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other 3

Probability Evidence - FRE 403 4

Stipulations – FRE 403 4

Specialized Rules of Relevance - FRE 407-411 5

The Ban on Character Propensity Evidence from Crimes and Other Acts - FRE 404(b) 7

Ways Around the Propensity Box: FRE 404(b)(2) 8

Permissible Routes THROUGH the Propensity Box 9

Huddleston Standard for Admitting Other Acts 10

Proof of the Defendant’s and Victim’s Character – 404(a)(2)(A), 404(a)(2)(B); 405 11

Habit Evidence – R406 12

Credibility Impeachment – FRE 608 (allowed by FRE404(a)(3)) 13

Credibility Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction – FRE 609 14

Juvenile Convictions – FRE 609(d) 16

Rehabilitation and Extrinsic Evidence – FRE 608(a) 16

Chapter 5: Rape Shield Law 17

Historic Backdrop (318) 17

The Shield Law (323) 18

The Law in Force (331) 18

A Glance at Civil Cases (360) 20

Hearsay 21

Definition of Hearsay: R801 (a) – (c) 21

Hearsay Exceptions: Statements of Party Opponents – FRE 801(d)(2) 23

Hearsay Exception: Past Statements of Witnesses – FRE 613, 801(d)(1) 25

Past Statements for Truth of the Matter – R801(d)(1) 25

Hearsay Exceptions That Apply Only When Declarant is Unavailable – FRE 804 27

Hearsay Exceptions That Apply Whether or Not Declarant is Available – FRE 803 31

Hearsay and The Confrontation Clause: From Roberts to Crawford 38

Hearsay and the Confrontation Clause: Post Crawford 40

Other Confrontation Clause Issues 43

Compulsory Process 44

Lay Opinions: 46

Expert Testimony 47

Areas that experts can’t testify on 47

The Proper Basis of Expert Testimony – FRE 703, 705 49

The Daubert Reliability Threshold for Expert Testimony 50

Generally; Psychotherapist, Medical, Reporter Privileges - FRE 501; Proposed FRE 504 52

Clergy, Attorney, Familial Privileges - Proposed FRE 506, 503, 511, 505 53

Quasi-Privileges – FRE 407, 408, 409, 410, 411 55

Authentication and Best Evidence – FRE 901, 902, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004 58

FRE 606- What juries can do after trials and after deliberation

-a jury may not testify about any statement or incident during deliberations, the effect of anything on that juror’s vote, or any juror’s mental processes

-exceptions:

-if extraneous prejudicial info was improperly brought to the jury’s attention

-if outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror; or

-a mistake was made in entering the verdict on the form

Relevance – FRE 401 and 402

  1. Rule 401 – Test for Relevant Evidence

    1. it has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be w/out the evidence (Probative),

      1. What are you trying to prove with this evidence and does this evidence prove that?

AND

  1. the fact is of consequence in determining the action (Material)

    1. Is the thing you are trying to prove important in determining the case?

    2. Must look to substantive law to know what issues are important

    3. Always material if it goes to motive, alibi, means, opportunity, credibility

  2. Incredibly lenient

    1. Admissible if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less true

    2. “A brick is not a wall”

  1. Rule 402 – General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence

    1. Relevant evidence unless the constitution, a fed statute, these rules, or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court (FRCPs) say otherwise

    2. Notice that is says irrelevant evidence is not admissible. That does not mean that relevant evidence is always admissible

  2. United States v. James (9th Cir 1999)

    1. Mom is charged with aiding and abetting manslaughter for giving daughter gun who then shot and killed boyfriend. Judge allows mother to testify that Ogden (bf) committed a bunch of violent crimes. Did not allow court documents confirming that he did commit those crimes.

    2. The risk is that the jury is going to think she is making up the stories he told her. Juries are very disbelieving of defendants in criminal trials.

    3. This bolsters credibility. It makes it more likely that he told her these stories because they are true.

Conditional Relevance - FRE 104(a) (b), 403

  1. R104(a) - the court must decide any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible. In so deciding, the court is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege.

    1. determined by a preponderance of the evidence (Huddleston)

  2. R104(b) –Relevance that Depends on a Fact- When the relevance of evidence depends on whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist. The court may admit the proposed evidence on the condition that the proof be introduced later.

    1. Requires that the proponent introduce sufficient evidence that the jury could reasonably find the conditional fact by a preponderance of the evidence

    2. Role of the judge

      1. Judges make the preliminary determination whether there is enough evidence in the record sufficient to support a finding of fulfillment of the condition (low standard), it can be admitted (even if the jury later finds otherwise)

      2. Judge may also introduce the conditionally relevant evidence subject to the introduction of further evidence to establish the condition. If such evidence is not introduced, the judge will instruct the jury to disregard it.

      3. The judge will issue a limiting instruction under FRE 105 informing the jury that they should only consider it if they find that the other fact is true

      4. If the objection is made, the judge will weigh the evidence under Rule 104(b). If there is no objection it will be judge under the bare relevance standard of 401.

  3. Cox v. State (1998) Indiana – R 104(b)

    1. Prosecutor wants to introduce that Cox knew about the bond hearing for his friend.

      1. Motive: Leonard’s daughter alleged that Hammer molested her. Cox was good friends with him. At the bond hearing, Leonard reported additional allegations which has resulted in his...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Evidence Outlines.