Introduction to Evidence
3 Ways Evidence Can be defined
What is
1. Proof of a cause of action.
2. Rules governing admissibility.
3. The thing in evidence.
What rule governs relevance
Rule 401
What rule governs unfair prejudice
Rule 403
4-Part Test for Flight Evidence
1. From the defendant's behavior to flight
2. From flight to consciousness of guilt
3. From consciousness of guilt to consciousness of guilt concerning the crime charged
4. From consciousness of guilt concerning the crime charged to actual guilt of the crime charged
The burden to prove relevance in a spoliation case:
A party must show a logical chain connecting the documents to the case, but not necessarily that this chain would have been unfavorable to the defendant
Three Types of Evidence:
1. Real Evidence: the actual thing
2. Representative Evidence: represents the evidence
3. Testimonial Evidence: words
When is evidence relevant
If it is probative of a fact of consequence
Rule 403 states that
evidence may be excluded if it probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
4 Purposes of "Prior Accidents Evidence":
1. To prove the Existence and Nature of the Defect: To show that the product was actually defective and not just a "freak accident".
2. Causation: To establish that the defect caused the accident.
3. Notice: To show that the defendant had knowledge of the issue and failed to fix it
4. Impeachment or Rebuttal: To counter the defense's claim that their product was safe and well-made
Adverse Inference:
This is a jury instruction that allows the jury to assume that evidence not presented in court would have been harmful to the party that had an obligation to produce it
Harmless Error:
Even if the trial court erred in admitting a piece of evidence (such as prematurely admitting notes under 803(5) without a proper foundation), the error will be deemed harmless if it did not affect a substantial right or substantially influence the outcome of the trial. If there is a "plethora of evidence" against the defendant, one erroneously admitted statement is less likely to be deemed reversible error. This is an assumption based entirely on the appellate record
What does probative mean
Is likely to make a fact more or less likely
Sliding Scale of Rule 403
The more probative value a piece of evidence has, the less likely it will be outweighed under Rule 403. Rule 403 creates a sliding scale and if evidence has only a tiny bit of probative value and significant unfair prejudice, it's more likely to be excluded.
Standard for Admissibility of Prior Accidents:
Evidence of prior accidents is admissible if they occurred under "substantially the same circumstances". Circumstances don't have to be identical, but they must be similar enough to prove the same defect
Doctrine of Spoliation:
This is the legal principle under which an adverse inference instruction is given when evidence is gone.
Standard of Review:
Appellate courts review evidence rulings for abuse of discretion. To win an appeal, the appellant must show the trial court committed a clear error of judgment
What does fact of consequence mean
helpful in resolving a case
Standard for Rule 403
pro-admissibility
"No Prior Accidents" Evidence Purpose:
1. to show a lack of defect
2. to disprove causation
Reasons for Evidence Being Gone:
(1) Bad Faith:
(2) Willful Destruction
(3) Negligent Destruction
(4) Mere Accident
Every evidence analysis should start with two fundamental questions:
1. What is the evidence? What is the offering party trying to put in the box?
2. What is the purpose for entering the evidence? Why is the evidence being offered?
What is the standard for relevance under rule 401
Pro-admissibility
Relation of Rule 403 to Rule 401
Evidence that passes the Rule 401 relevance test may still be excluded by Rule 403.
A proper foundation must be laid before evidence of "no prior accidents" is admitted--the defendant must show:
1. that the products in question were substantially identical
2. they would have known about any prior accidents if they had occurred
Twin Aims of Adverse Inference-Courts give these instructions for two main reasons:
1. Punitive: To make the destruction of evidence so costly that it deters future destruction
2. Remedial: To put the victim in the position they would have been in if the evidence hadn't been destroyed.