Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
16 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
FRE 103(a)
|
Effect of Erroneous Ruling: error may not be based on a ruling which admits or excludes evidences UNLESS a substantial right of the party is affect AND
(1) a timely objection is made if the ruling admitted evidence OR (2) an offer of proof is made if the ruling excluded evidence ALSO: there is NO NEED to renew an objection or offer of proof already made to preserve the error for appeal |
|
|
FRE 103(b)
|
Record of Offer and Ruling: the court can add to or ask for offer in question and answer form
|
|
|
FRE 103(c)
|
Hearing of the Jury: when practicable proceedings shall be conducted so inadmissible evidence is not offered in front of the jury
|
|
|
FRE 103(d)
|
Plain Error: the court may always take notice of plain errors affecting substsantial rights even if they were not brought to the attention of the court
|
|
|
Does alleged drug abuse count as an influence external to jury deliberation?
|
NO! It is a factor in the mental state of the jurors and mental state is internal. FRE 606(b) forbids JUROR testimony on this sort of internal influence (although OUTSIDE evidence/testimony is still ok). [Tanner v US]
|
|
|
FRE 606(b)
|
AFTER the verdict, jurors may not testify as to any matter occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations.
BUT a juror may testify about: (1) extraneous prejudicial information improperly brought before the jury (2) whether outside influence was present (3) whether there was a clerical error on the verdict form |
|
|
The police showed up to arrest husband for murder. Wife came in and started screaming "Show me the body! If there was a murder where is the body?" List the chain of inferences that could make the wife's testimony admissible. [Problem 1.1. pg 21]
|
Wife thought there could be no arrest for murder without a body.-->Wife knew there was no body.-->Wife knew of or helped with the concealment of the body.-->Wife knew of or helped with the murder.-->Wife's statements are probative of her knowledge of husband's guilt.
|
|
|
X testified that D told him in prison that he killed V. Y testified that X told him he intended to falsely implicate D. Y is in a secret organization sworn to lie or kill for D. List the COI. [Problem 1.2 pg 22]
|
Y will lie/kill for D-->D might be convicted on statements of X-->Y will lied to save D from statements of X.
|
|
|
D volunteered to take polygraph test and unhesitatingly told the expert to "hook him up." Polygraph examinations are not admissible. List the COI that might make the response to the expert admissible. [Problem 1.3 pg 22]
|
Truthtellers are not nervous about lie-detector tests-D is not nervous about a lie detector test-->D is telling the truth-->D is innocent.
BUT People confident about their ability to fool LDTs are not nervous about taking them-->D could be confident in his ability to lie-->D could still be lying-->D could be guilty (but he could still be innocent! it still has a (weak) tendency) |
|
|
FRE 401
|
Definition of RELEVANCE: evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
|
|
|
D is on trial for accessory to murder for handing her daughter the gun with which the daughter killed D's violent boyfriend. Her defense is self-defense. Are court documents that show the truth of boyfriend's violent stories relevant? [US v James pg 25]
|
YES. Although self-defense is based on subjective knowledge, the COI is:
Ppl (even liars) tell the truth often-->If he told her it might be the truth-->If its the truth she might believe it-->If she believes it she might fear for her safety. |
|
|
D was found with a gun. D had a prior conviction that could have (but didn't) sentenced her to more than one year in jail. It is illegal to carry a gun with a prior conviction allowing more than one year. Is her testimony that she did not know the nature of her prior conviction relevant? [Problem 1.4 pg 23]
|
She did not know she had been convicted of a crime allowing more than one year-->She did not know the law applied to her-->She must have mens rea to be guilty-->She is not guilty [IF the crime requires mens rea!]
|
|
|
D was high and drunk when he shot two people. D wants to testify about his intoxication. The statute says voluntary intox is not probative about intent in a criminal offense. Is the testimony admissible? [Problem 1.5 pg 24]
|
NO. The statute says it's not probative, so it can't be material.
|
|
|
D is a police officer who shot V after V raised a violin case to his shoulder. D contends it was self-defense because he believed the violin case had a gun inside it; the prosecution wants to introduce evidence that it was full of cash and not weapons. Is the evidence admissible? [Problem 1.6]
|
NO. The question is whether it is reasonable to believe that there was a gun in the case, not whether there actually was.
There was money in the case-->it is not likely that he lifted a case of money in a gunlike way-->it is less likely that the police officer saw him lift the case in a gunlike way. |
|
|
FRE 403
|
Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time
(1) a balancing test MAY result in exclusion: probative weight v. unfair prejudice (2) standard of review is abuse of discretion |
|
|
What is 'unfair prejudice'
|
A risk that the jury will be LURED into using the evidence for some improper purpose
|
