RELEVANCE

1) Does the proffered evidence have any tendency to make a material fact more or less likely than it would be without the evidence? (FRE 401). (low bar) “a brick is not a wall” (Dominguez).

CONSIDER

-Materiality: fact is of consequence in determining the action (based on elements of claim/defense)

-ATTACKING CREDIBILITY other evidence. (good backup for relevance)

-Ex: officer said he ‘reasonably feared for his life’ but the violin case actually had $$ in it. Relevant on credibility of his account. Less likely that the guy pointed the case at him if there wasn’t a gun inside.

BUT can be relevant even if the issue isn’t disputed (stipulated).

-might be necessary for context, narrative, understand events, etc.

Larson – evidence of BAC compared to BAC levels that impair driving was relevant as a frame of reference for jury.

*Logical inferences make sense? Can logically establish fact that the proponent asserts it will prove.

Knapp: evidence that man had died of alcoholism, not cop-beating. Knapp claimed he was afraid of cop bc he heard that he killed the guy. Relevant: tends to negate Knapp’s claim that he heard the cop killed someone. If it wasn’t true, less likely that he actually heard it.

Dominguez : Relevent: evid that D owned gun and got the barrel changed. Charged w/ shooting.

Ex: “show me the body!” when they arrest her husband. Relevant since it suggests that she knows D is involved and hid the body.

Conditionally relevant on them having had opportunity for private discussion. But can be easily proved w/ circumstantial evidence.

NO=> irrelevant = inadmissible.

YES=> relevant. Admissible unless other rules/laws say so (FRE 402). Continue.

2) FRE 403 BALANCING

*often used for evidence that is admissible for one purpose but inadmissible for another.

+Degree of probative value (it has some since we got here, but question is how much).

-ability of evidence to increase/decrease probability of a material fact.

-Other evidence in the case that already proves proposition in question and is less prejudicial or distracting?

-Ex: Stipulations? (Old Chief is fairly limited, see below)

YES=> probative value diminished

NO=> probative value enhanced

*Flight evidence: as circumstantial evidence of guilt.

Usually judge won’t let in due to weak probative value (but high potential for prejudice).

Depends on four inferences 1) D’s behavior reflects flight (running away from something w/ no other reason for leaving); 2) flight reflects consciousness of guilt (could have fled bc he didn’t want to testify); 3) consciousness of guilt is for this crime (not some other one); 4) consciousness of guilt for this crime reflects actual guilt (might think they’re responsible despite not actually being responsible).

- “Dangers” weighed against

-Unfair prejudice: invites fact-finder to (often emotional)

-USE AN IMPROPER PURPOSE (‘decide on a basis prohibited by another rule’)

McCray: admissible – gruesome photos after gunshot. Need to evaluate trajectory and claim of accident, suggests D’s account was wrong.

-dislike a party OR punish someone for an action not at issue in the case

-Confusing the issues: may cause jury to misunderstand key issues/facts in the case

-may cause jury to not properly consider other evidence in the case.

Flitcraft – inadmissible fake legal documents. Low probative bc he could testify himself, and would confuse jury into thinking that the law is unsettled.

-Distraction: may “mislead”

-to putting disproportionate weight on evidence (ex: DNA evid., CSI effect)

-to immaterial issue

Noriega – dont admit why Noriega got $$ from CIA. Would confuse + distract,

-to prohibited line...

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