Relevance

Question 1

Rule 401

Answer 1

Evidence is relevant if:
1. It has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be w/o the evidence; and
2. The fact is of consequence in determining the action
* Material Facts: Credibility of the witness, elements of the crime/claim/defense, Damages (civil case).

Question 2

Things to know about 401

Answer 2

a. Evidence just needs to move the needle—have a tendency to make the existence of the fact to be proved more or less probable than it was before the evidence (even if only 1%; slight probative worth).
b. Evidence may be properly directed only to a fact that is of consequence in the determination of the action—a material fact.
c. Evidence of flight is relevant: it has a tendency to establish guilt, but doesn’t suffice for conviction b/c could be reasons apart from guilt.
d. The fact of consequence need not be in dispute and an offer to stipulate the fact does not render it irrelevant, see Old Chief.
e. Evidentiary alternatives, such as a stipulation, have no significance re: relevance—they do not render relevant evidence irrelevant

ii. Relevancy is NOT sufficiency:
1. All of the evidence (the totality of it) must be sufficient to meet burden of proof (e.g. clear and convincing, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.)
2. However, there are many little pieces of evidence that make up totality—“a brick is not a wall.” Accordingly, a single piece of evidence need only be relevant—move the needle—and need not alone be sufficient to satisfy burden. “It is not supposed to be that every witness can make a home run.”
a. Sufficient when it is enough to meet burden of proof
b. Relevant when it moves needle—makes fact more or less probable

Question 3

Rule 402

Answer 3

1. Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:
   a. The U.S. Constitution;
   b. A federal statute;
   c. These rules (some require exclusion despite relevancy, e.g. FRE 403 and FRE 801); or
   d. Other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court.
2. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.

`

Question 4

Rule 403

Answer 4

Taketh Away:
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

Question 5

Things to know about 403

Answer 5

i. Unfair prejudice does not simply mean harm—all relevant evidence that supports one side is likely to harm the other. Instead, the focus is unfair harm:
Chapple case to inflame the jury (emotionalism).
Misuse by the jury in the Old Chief Case.

Question 6

Rule 105

Answer 6

1. If court admits evidence that is admissible against a party or for a purpose—but not against another party or for another purpose—the court, on timely request (must be requested by objecting party; sometimes unwanted for tactical reasons), must restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.

Question 7

Things to know about 105

Answer 7

Close relationship b/w 403 and 105:
105 admits evidence but does so for a limited purpose. it limits the scope of the evidence.
105 situations occurs more frequently than 403 situations. more ofthen than not, courts admit evidence having unwanted spillover effect and provide a limiting insturction.

Question 8

Rule 106: Remainder of or Related Writing or Recorded Statment

Answer 8

1. If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part—or any other writing or recorded statement—that in fairness out to be considered at the same time.