Evidence Holdings

When determining relevance, the standard of probability is "more probable that it would be wihtout the evidence," regardless of whether evidence is strong or weak.

Proof of bias is almost alwasy relevant because the jury, as the finder of fact, has historically been entitled to assess all evidence which might affect a witness's truth and credibility.

Evidence is not admissible if its unfairly prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.

Flight may be admissible to show consciousness of guilt only if the prosecution establishes a logical chain of inferences showing:
1. The defendant fled.
2. The flight was motivated by a consciousness of guilt.
3. The guilt was related to the crime charged.

When a suspect is under no obligation to respond to a police officer's inquity, flight to avoid that contact should be given little, if any, weight a factor probative of reasonable suspiction.

If the relevance of social-media messages depends on authorship, authenticating the messages requires sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimed individual(s) authored the messages.

As time passes, the probative value of a prior conviction drops and the potential of unfair prejudice increases.

If evidence is likely to produce an emotional response, but necessary to prove an element of the offense, it is not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.

The court can require the government to accept a stipulation and exclude evidence that would be unfairly prejudicial.

In other words, if less prejudicial evidence (stipulation) has the same relevance and probative value, then the court should consider the less prejudicial one.

FRE 407 (fixing something after someone is hurt) does not apply where the modification took place before the accident that precipitated the suit.

Computer generated records do not constitute hearsay because they do not contain a statement.

The hearsay rule applies to written statements too because the declarant’s credibility cannot be established.

The 6A Confrontation Clause gives defendants the right to challenge witnesses against them. This means testimonial evidence, like affidavits, can only be used at trial if either:
(1) the witness is there and can be cross-examined, or
(2) the witness can’t be there, but the defendant had a chance to cross-examine them before.

A prior statement may be admitted under the prior inconsistent testimony exception where the witness’s memory loss is not genuine (previously answered & now claiming not to know).

An implied assertion within a statement can constitute hearsay, even if the statement’s express assertion is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

Composite sketches are not hearsay and are admissible.

The proponent of a party-opponent admission (an out-of-court statement by a party that is against the party's interest and that is admissible against the party) must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant made the statement

An agency relationship exists only if both the principal and the agent have demonstrated their assent to the principal’s right to control and instruct the agent.

In making a preliminary determination of whether a conspiracy exists, to determine the admissibility of evidence, a court may consider the hearsay statements sought to be admitted.

A dying declaration is not prohibited by the hearsay rule if the speaker believes their death is both imminent and certain.

The state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule does not apply to declarations about a past event.

When a significant, internveing event, or substantial change in circumstances accorires between statements, Rule 803(1) (present sense impressions hearsay exceptions) may require a court to treat a declarant’s statement’s differently.

Out-of-court statements are admissible to prove the declarant’s intent to perform a particular act if that act is at issue in the case. While it cannot prove the declarant performed the act, the statement is relevant because his intent to do the act makes it more probable he did the act.

A statment admitted under the medical treatment and diagnosis exception cannot be made by a third person. [Note: a spouse or parent could make a statement about another, but those statements must be based on personal knowledge and for genuine medical purposes].

Statements to a physician identifying an assailant may be admissible if the presenting party can show: (1) the physician made clear to the victim that the inquiry into the abuser’s identity was essential to diagnosis and treatment and (2) the victim manifested such understanding.

A business record is admissible if it is made in the regular course of business and it is the regular course of business to make such a record.

Statements in the form of opinion or conclusions are not, by that fact, excluded from the scope of Rule 803(8)(A)(iii)
(exception in a case against gov't public record for factually findings in a legally authorized investigation)

To be admissible hearsay under the Confrontation Clause, the declarant must be unavailable and the statement must have adequate “indica of reliability” (overruled in Crawford).

6A's CC is violated when a testimonial statment of a witness who did nto appear at trial is admitted unless the witness (1) was unavailable per Rule 804(a) and the defendant had prior opportunity for cross examination

If the primary purpose of a statement made to law-enforcement personnel is to resolve an ongoing emergency, that statement is nontestimonial and not subject to the Confrontation Clause, BUT if circumstances objectively indicate the primary purpose was to get information for prosecution then it is testimonial and subject to the Confrontation Clause.

The Confrontation Clause generally requires the prosecution to introduce a forensic-laboratory report containing testimonial certification through the in-court testimony of the scientist who signed the certification or who personally performed or observed the performance of the test reported in the certification.

An expert witness may state an expert opinion that is based on facts the expert assumes, but does not know, to be true.

Under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, the reliability of testimonial evidence against a criminal defendant must be tested by cross-examination.

When a witness testifies to the defendant’s character, the prosecution is allowed to test the foundation of their knowledge by asking questions to see how well they know the defendant/the defendant’s actions in question.

Admissible habit evidence must show a person’s regular response to a repeated specific situation.

Prior-bad-act evidence is admissible when it is relevant to motive, intent, or the accused’s state of mind and their probative value is not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.

Prior bad acts may be admitted under Rule 404(b) to prove intent or absence of accident if they are relevant, sufficiently similar and timely, supported by evidence, and their probative value outweighs unfair prejudice.

The evidence must be offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b);
The evidence must be relevant under Rule 401;
The probative value of the evidence must not be substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice under Rule 403; and
The district court, upon request, must have instructed the jury pursuant to Rule 105 to consider the evidence only for the purpose for which it was admitted.

Evidence of a prior act can be admitted under an exception to Rule 404(b) if a jury could reasonably find that the defendant committed the prior act, even if he was not convicted of the bad act.

Under 404(b), evidence of a criminal defendant’s prior bad acts is admissible to show the defendant’s cirminal intent only if the intent is an element of the crime charged and at issue in the case.

A witness who has actually made a statement contradictory to trial testimony cannot escape impeachment simply by saying she does not remember making the statement.

Impeachment by prior inconsistent statement is proper even where the statement contains evidence of prior bad acts, because the statement is not being used to demonstrate that the defendant acted in accordance with certain prior conduct/character, it is being used to show a witness previously said something differently.

Evidence of a conviction requiring proof or admission of an act of dishonesty or false statement is automatically admissible and not subject to Rule 403 balancing by the court because it has to do with credibility.

Confinement for the purposes of the ten-year time limit in Rule 609(b) does not include periods of probation, the clock starts at the witness’s release from any physical confinement or date of conviction in absence of physical confinement.

When conducting the Rule 403 balancing test incorporated into Rule 609(a)(1) courts examine the following factors: (2) the impeachment value of the prior crime, (2) the remoteness of the prior conviction, (3) the similarity between the past crime and the conduct at issue, and (4) the importance of the credibility of the witness.

The admissibility of testimony accompanied by a Rule 612 refreshment does not depend on the source of writing, the identity of the writing’s author, or the truth of the writing; any writing may be used to refresh the recollection of a witness.

A prior recording of a hearsay statement may be read to the jury only if the speaker is unable to fully and accurately testify about the recorded matter.

Generally, observations which do not require significant expertise to interpret and which are not based on scientific theory can be admitted as lay opinions if the requirements of 701 are met.

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, a lay witness may give opinion testimony if the testimony is rationally based on the witness’s perception and is helpful to establish a clear understanding of the testimony or the determination of a fact at issue.

Expert testimony from a qualified expert is admissible if it will assist the jury in comprehending the evidence and determining issues of fact.

1. whether the witness is opining on simple or complicated facts
2. whether the witness is using simple or complicated reasoning to analyze the facts
3. wheter the witness gained knowledge necessary to analyze the facts intentionally (by seeking education or training) or simply by living their life (organically acquiring life experience)
4. whether the witness is being paid
5. how the witness acquired the relevant facts necessary to form an opinion

Under 704(b), an expert in a criminal case may not opine directly on the defendant’s mental state, but may testify about general patterns or practices that do not specifically address the defendant.