#20360 - Evidence Outline Relevance - Evidence Outline: Relevance

Evidence is relevant if:

1. It has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

2. The fact is of consequence in determining the evidence

Both of these requirements must be met for evidence to be relevant.

Under the more or less probability standard:

1. To be relevant, a piece of evidence does not have to establish liability by a preponderance of the evidence in a civil case, or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case.

2. “A brick is not a wall.”

   1. To be relevant, an item of evidence does not have to construct a whole wall. It simply has to be one of the bricks out of which a wall can be made.

Evidence is material if it bears on fact of consequence in determining the action

Evidence that is not relevant is inadmissible

1. The mere fact that evidence is relevant, however, does not guarantee that it is admissible.

Materiality

1. Evidence is material if it bears on fact of consequence in determining the action

2. Evidence is material if it is offered to prove or disprove a specific fact in issue.

   1. Thus, evidence is material if it relates to one of the particular elements necessary for proving or disproving a case.

Question 2:

1. In a situation where V was killed with a serrated knife that is typically for right handed users, evidence of the analysis that shows that the wound showed that the perpetrator was right handed is material because it is relevant.

Probativeness

1. If an item of evidence tends to prove or disprove any proposition, it is relevant to that proposition.

2. If the proposition itself is one provable in the case at bar, or if it in turn forms a further link in a chain of proof the final proposition of which is provable in the case at bar, then the offered item of evidence has probative value in the case.

   1. Whether the immediate or ultimate proposition sought to be proved is provable in the case at bar is determined by the substantive law governing the case.

An offered item of evidence may be excluded as “irrelevant” for either of these two quite distinct reasons:

1. Because it is not probative of the proposition at which it is directed, or

2. Because that proposition is not provable in this case.

Important Rule Statements:

Rule:

1. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, corroborating evidence of a victim’s violent history is admissible to show the defendant acted in self-defense. [Materiality—>Relevance]

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 can be introduced later.

1. This rule requires there to be sufficient evidence to support a jury finding of the conditional fact.

   1. The judge makes a preliminary determination whether the foundation evidence is sufficient to support a finding of fulfillment of the condition.

      1. If so, the item is admitted.

         1. If after all the evidence on the issue is in, pro and con, the jury could reasonably conclude that fulfillment of the condition is not established, the issue is for them.

      2. If the evidence, not such as to allow a finding, the judge withdraws the matter from the jury’s consideration.

2. The court has discretion in admitting the proposed evidence. They may admit it on the condition that the proof can be introduced later.

Cox v. State: Bare relevance v. Rule 104(b) standard

1. Bare relevance

   1. The trial judge would have asked simply whether the outcome of Jamie Hammer’s bond reduction hearing had any tendency to make it more probable Cox had a motive to kill (and therefore did kill) James Leonard.

2. Rule 104(b)

   1. Evidence of the bond reduction hearing could come in only if the prosecutor had introduced “sufficient evidence to support a finding” that Cox had heard about the hearing.

Under the terms of Rule 104(b), the court may admit the evidence only after it makes a preliminary determination that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the conditional fact exist

1. The judge must determine only that a reasonable jury could make the requisite factual determination based on the evidence before it.

   1. For example

      1. A ballistics expert’s opinion that a particular bullet was shot from the defendant’s gun would have no relevance unless the bullet the expert examined is the one that struck the victim or is otherwise connected with the crime.

         1. The bullet that struck the victim is the required sufficient evidence under Rule 104(b) to support a finding that the defendant was guilty of shooting the victim.

Evidence must be relevant to be admissible, but not all relevant evidence is admissible.

Rule 403:

1. The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following:

   1. The Risk of Unfair prejudice

   2. Confusing the issues

   3. Misleading the jury

   4. Undue delay

   5. Wasting time

   6. Needlessly presenting cumulative evidence

2. The rule gives the trial judge discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by one of the factors mentioned.

   1. REMEMBER: PROBATIVE VALUE IS THE VALUE THAT THE EVIDENCE HAS THAT TENDS TO PROVE OR DISPROVE ANY PROPOSITION

3. The burden of showing that relevant evidence should be excluded for one of the factors mentioned is on the opponent.

Unfair Prejudice:

1. Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it invites the jury to make a decision on an improper ground.

   1. Unfair prejudice refers to either the “injection of undue emotionalism into the proceeding arousing hostility, anger, or sympathy” or “the likelihood that the jury will misuse the evidence in some way or give it undue weight.”

2. A common example of evidence that may be unfairly prejudicial is something that elicits a strong emotional response by jurors, creating a danger they will render a verdict based on sympathy or anger or any other emotional response, rather than the facts of the case.

3. This is where the prejudicial value of evidence comes in:

   1. If a piece of evidence elicits such a response from the jurors that it deters their decision from focusing solely on the facts of the case and rather making their decision based on their reaction to the information that was presented to them.

4. In this case:

   1. Relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.

   2. For example:

      1. In a murder case, for example, photos and other inflammatory evidence that has the potential to cause the jury to make their decision based on their emotional or mental reactions to the evidence may be excluded if it substantially outweighs the probative value that the evidence has.

5. Another common example of the use of Rule 403 is when an item of evidence may be admissible for one purpose, but not another, and the risk that the jury will use the evidence for the improper purpose is so great that limiting instructions by the judge may not control it.

   1. The evidence, in this case, invites a decision on an improper ground.

   2. The judge must decide whether the risk the jury will use the evidence for an improper purpose substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence for the legitimate purpose for which a purpose for which a party has offered it.

6. IMPORTANT: As long as the purpose for which the jury will use the evidence is a proper one, evidence is not unfairly prejudicial no matter how powerful it may be.

7. Balancing the risk of unfair prejudice AGAINST PROBATIVE VALUE requires the parties to articulate specifically both what the value of the evidence is in proving the proponent’s case and how the evidence may cause the jury to return a verdict on an improper ground.

   1. In assessing probative value, the judge should consider:

      1. How central the fact to be proved is to the claim or defense it is offered to support,

      2. Weigh the significance of this evidence in the context of all the available evidence in the case, and

      3. Take into account whether there are alternate means of proving the fact in question.

   2. In measuring the risk of prejudice, the judge should:

      1. Determine precisely how the jurors might use the evidence improperly,

      2. Assess how tempting, compelling or inflammatory the improper use is, and

      3. Consider how effective a limiting instruction would be in controlling the risk of prejudice.

REMEMBER, THE RULE 403 BALANCING TEST APPLIES TO ALL FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE EXCEPT FOR RULE 609(a)(2).

Relevance Under 403= Prejudicial Probative

1. : Substantially Greater Than

A fundamental rule that sets the framework for the interpretation and application of all the rules of evidence in federal court proceedings. It essentially provides guidance on the proper construction and understanding of these rules.

Rule 102 states that the rules of evidence should be construed to secure fairness in the administration of justice, promote the growth and development of the law of evidence, and ensure consistency in their application.

It emphasizes that the rules should be interpreted to avoid unintended restrictions on the introduction of evidence or the development of legal principles.

In practice, Rule 102 reminds judges, attorneys, and...