All Cases Flashcards
(37 cards)
Tanner v. United States 483 U.s. 107 (1987)
Rule/Topic: Jury ImpeachmentFacts:Jury Party.Fruad case; lawyer wanted evidentiary hearing to interview the jury after the trial.Two jurors voluntarily told defense lawyer the jury drank and used cocaine during the trial.TC ruled evidence was inadmissable under FRE 606(b).AC: affirmHolding: No jury impeachmentReasoning: using internal/external distinction test.Drugs & alcohol = internal issue (like virus or lack of sleep) and cannot be used to impeach a jury verdict.What happens in jury room, stays in jury room.Dissent: Drugs = external issue and judges can draw the line between virus or lack of sleep and intoxication.5-4 decisionFRE: 606(b)
Warger v. Shauers (in class)
Rule/Topic: Jury ImpeachmentFacts:Juror said “no, there is no reason I can’t be fair”Then Juror in deliberation said “my own daughter cased a wrongful death, and a conviction would have ruined her life”Holding: No jury impeachmentReasoning: Same reasoning in Tanner.Internal comments in deliberation should be protected.Maybe inappropriate things happen, but cost > benefit of investigating juriesFRE: 606(b)
Pena-rodriguez v. colorado (in class)
Rule/Topic: Jury ImpeachmentFacts:Juror relied on racial descrimination to convict a criminal defendantHolding: No jury impeachmentReasoning: 6th amendment requires that the no-impeachment of the verdict rule (606) give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror’s statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee.FRE: 606(b)
United States v. Yahweh Ben Yahweh
Rule/Topic: PrejudiceFacts:14 murders.Prosecutors enlarged images of the gruesome deaths to show the jury.D claimed the size of the photos was prejudiceHolding: No, prejudice < provative valueReasoning: No distortion in the photographs.Murder is already prejudicial but photographs don’t make it unfair.FRE: 403
Old Chief v. United States 117 S. Ct. 644, 65 U.s.l.w. 4049 (1997)
Rule/Topic: PrejudiceFacts:D prosecuted for possession of firearm.D has a prior felony conviction = no firearm allowed.P wants to introduce the name of the previous felony to prove the element.D wants to exclude the name and concede the element to not prejudice the jury.Holding: Yes, Prejudice > probative valueReasoning: name of previous felony is “unfairly” prejudice when P only needs to establish the element that D was within a certain class that is prohibited to have a gun.The previous conviction was not the focus of this trial.FRE:
People v. Collins 68 Cal. 2d 319, 438 P.2d 33, 66 Cal. Rptr. 497 (1968)
Rule/Topic: Circumstantial proofFacts:Charge: MurderEvidence: statistical analysis that the characteristics of the defendants made it 1/12M that it was the D’s who committed the murder.Trial court allowd evidence and held against D.Holding: No circumstantial proof.Supreme court reversed.Reasoning: Cannot use probablity to prove D’s are guilty.analysis is incorrect and makes too many erroneous assumptions.FRE:
St. Pierre v. Houde 269 A.2d 538 (me. 1970)
Rule/Topic: Facts:D laywer said, D is “Liable out of his own pocket.”P allowed to make statement not favorable.D sued for abuse of discressionHolding: No abuse of discretion.Reasoning: D opened the doorFRE: 411
People v. Zackowitz 254 N.y. 192, 172 N.e. 466 (1930)
Rule/Topic: Propensity Rule - Character evidenceFacts:Victim verbally harassed D’s wife. D said, “if you’re still here in 5 minutes, I’ll bump you.”Took wife home.Went back and fought Victim, shooting him with a pistol. Disputed that D had pistol in his pocket all night or grabbed it at the house.P wants to introduce evidence of guns left at home.Holding: No, evidence not allowed. Mistrial.Reasoning: MAJORITY: Guns would have been allowed to show expectation of encounter, preparation, or design, but he didn’t bring them.Inference that man is murderous can’t be drawn from leaving guns at home.Nothing to mark this man as evil (no criminal record, no criminal associates, etc.)DISSENT: it didn’t show propensity, it showed preparation, plan, opportunity = 1st degree. FRE: 404
United States v. Trenkler 61 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 1995)
Rule/Topic: Propensity Rule - Character evidenceFacts:D on trial for bombing. P introduces evidence of previous bombing done by D (D admitted building previous bomb).D appeals evidence is too dissimilar and prejudiceHolding: Yes, evidence allowed to show MO (identity).AffirmedReasoning: Expert testified bombs were made by same person.Therefore, the bombs were similar enough to be able to be used to show identity.
Huddleston v. United States 485 U.s. 681 (1988)
Rule/Topic: Propensity Rule - Character evidenceFacts:D caught selling stolen Cassette Tapes.P introduces evidence of past conduct of selling stolen appliances and mass sale of TV’s.P wants to instroduce to show knowledge.TC convicted D on possession.AP: reversed, then affirmed on rehearing.D appeals b/c didn’t prove TV’s were stolen.Holding: Yes, evidence is admitted to show similar mental stateReasoning: Judge uses 104(b) to decide if reasonable person (jury) could decide that D sold Stolen TV’s in the past. Judge doesn’t have to decide if D, in fact, sold stolen TV’sJury then could decide weight of evdence.FRE: 404
Michelson v. United States 335 U.s. 469 (1948)
Rule/Topic: CharacterFacts:Charges: Bribery.D case in chief calls character witnesses.P, in cross, asks if they heard of arrest for fraud relating to watches (30 years ago).D objects.TC allows questioning b/c witness knew the D for ~30 years, but is highly controversial.AC fails to adopt rule that only prior arrests that are related can be asked about.Holding: Yes, character evidence allowed.Affirmed.Reasoning: The court held that the cross-examination question was proper because reports of defendant’s arrest for receiving stolen goods, if admitted, would tend to weaken defendant’s assertion that he was known as an honest and law-abiding citizen.FRE:
Dallas Railway And Terminal Co. v. Farnsworth 148 Tex. 584, 227 S.w.2d 1017 (1950)
Rule/Topic: CharacterFacts:Grandma (P) disembarks streetcar and gets hit as it swings around the corner.P wants to introduce her testimony of previous actions that driver was in a hurry, kids barely got on previously, people barely got off before he takes off.Holding: ???Yes, testimony admitted.Reasoning: the acts are connected in some special way, indicating a relevancy beyond mere similarity in certain particulars.Testimony desribes this same incident, not some prior act.FRE:
Meyer v. United States 464 F. Supp. 317 (d. Colo. 1979)
Rule/Topic: Character - habitsFacts:P get wisdom teeth removed, but tongue is numb. Sues D for negligence (lack of consent).P testifies that D (dentist) never gave warnings about numbness.D testifies that he did give warnings b/c he has a habit of giving warnings.TC admits evidence of habit created by D.`Holding: Yes, evidence allowedReasoning: Evidence allowed to show habit that dr gives warnings about risks before every surgery.FRE: 406
Rock v. Arkansas 483 U.s. 44 (1987)
Rule/Topic: CompetencyFacts:Charge: first degree murder.D had sketchy recollection of the events that led to her husbands death.He denied her food, refused to let her leave, choked her.D testified that she grabbed the gun, pointed down, then victim hit her and struggle ensued, then gun went off.Laywer suggested hypnosis to remember.session led to discovery that gun had defect and would go off of dropped or hit.TC: hypnosis evidence not allowed.Holding: Reverse and remand.Hypnosis evidene allowedReasoning: per se restriction on hypnosis violated1) 14th amendment (due process right to testify).Evidence found on gun corroborated her testimony.Transcript proved hipnosis Dr wasn’t leading questions.FRE:
United States v. Alexander 48 F.3d 1477 (9th Cir. 1995)
Rule/Topic: Use of prior convictionsFacts:D’s were charged with conspiracy, bank robbery, etc.Would court allow evidence of prior drug and robbery convictions.Priors include conspiracy to commit bank robbery and drug sales.D objects.P has to prove that probative value for truthfulness > unfair prejudice.What should P consider when weighing factors???D testified that he ran from police b/c of prior traffic offenses (alibi for burglary)Holding: Yes, allow prior convictionsReasoning: cook factors (609):- impeachment value of prior conviction- the point in time of the conviction and D’s later cirminal history.- the similarity between the past crime and the current charged crime- importance of the defendant’s testimony- The centrality of the defendant’s credibilityFactors satisfied.FRE:
United States v. Paige 464 F. Supp. 99 (e.d. Pa. 1978)
Rule/Topic: Use of prior convictionsFacts:caught with stolen goods.Prior convictions: caught with stolen goods.Motion in limine to not allow prior convictions.Holding: No, dissallow prior convictionsReasoning: prejudice > substantive value b/c cases are so similar.Policy: we want to incentivise people to testify.FRE:
United States v. Abel 469 U.s. 45 (1984)
Rule/Topic: Facts:D committed bank robbery. D had cohort E who was going to testify against him at trial. D calls mills to testify that E told Mills that E was going to testify “to gain favorable treatment from the gov’t.”P introduces evidence of secret prison gang.Whether bias can be established through extrinsic evdience if the witness denies the biasHolding: Yes, allow extrinsic evidence to show biasReasoning: no rule that evidence admissible for one purpose but not admissible for another purpose is rendered inadmissible. Evidence to show bias can be used even if it also tends to show the Witness is a lier.FRE:
Bourjaily v. United States 483 U.s. 171 (1987)
Rule/Topic: HearsayFacts:FBI set up drug dealer selling cocaine. Phone conversation was evidence that dealer and “friend” (petitioner) would pick up the drugs at a certain time at a certain location. Evidence of phone conversation was entered over objection from petitioner. P argued that only independent evidence can be considered to show there was a conspiracy and that the statement was in furtherance of the conspiracy.P argues rule allowing evidence also violates 6th amendment rights (confrentation clause). Holding: Yes, ruled “not hearsay” under 801(d)(2)(E) exception.Reasoning: The court could examine the hearsay statements sought to be admitted.No Constitutional problem b/c requirements for 801 and 6th constitution are the same.The Confrontation Clause did not require a trial court to embark on an independent inquiry into the reliability of statements that satisfied the requirements of Rule 801(d)(2)(E).FRE: 801(d)(2)(E)
Tome v. United States 115 S. Ct. 696 (1995)
Rule/Topic: HearsayFacts:AT charged with child sex abuse. Child testimony was weak. Prosecutor introduced several witnesses to testify of prior statements AT made to them (babysitter, doctors, mother).TC: allowed prior statements; prosecution used them substantively, not to rebut Holding: Yes, hearsay. Statements not admittedReasoning: Prior consistent statements must PREDATE the improper influence or motivestatements made after influence don’t rebut the improper motive/influence (801(d)(1)(B)(i)FRE: 801(d)(1)(B)
Williamson v U.S.
Rule/Topic: HearsayFacts:Drug charges. Witness refused to testify and was held in contempt.Court ruled witness as unavailable and allowed hearsay statements that led to D’s conviction.Could the whole statement made from the witness (some culpatory, some not) be used in state against interst?Holding: No, Hearsay not allowedReasoning: statements against interest of the declarant exception to the hearsay rule did not allow admission of non-self-inculpatory statements, even if they were made within a broader narrative that was generally self-inculpatory.Only those portions of a statemetn that are actually disserving to the declarant fall within the statement against interest exception.Test: a reasonable person in D’s position would not have made this statement unless believing it to be trueFRE: 804(b)(3)
Shepard v. United States 290 U.s. 96 (1933)
Rule/Topic: HearsayFacts:Charge of murder. Dr. Shepard allegedly poisoned because he was in love with another woman and wanted to get rid of wife.V was poisoned and said “Dr. Shepard poisoned me.”V recovered a little bit, but then got worse and died weeks later.TC: allowed the statementWas the statement in the shadow of death, or not?Holding: No, hearsay not allowed. Reasoning: Death was not impending because there was still hope of recovery.FRE: 804(b)(2) - dying declaration
Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon 145 U.s. 285 (1892)
Rule/Topic: HearsayFacts:P husband was killed in a shooting accident, and body was burried.D insurance company refused to pay b/c they think the body belonged to the traveling companion, not the husband.TC excluded evidence of letters that extablished intent to accompany the insured.Question: can D introduce the letters to show current intent to travel with P’s husband?Holding: yes, Admissible. Reasoning: TC errored in excluding the letters because they proved a then existing state of mind from which a jury could decide reliability. 803(3) codifies common law doctrine here.FRE: 803(3)
Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey 488 U.s. 153 (1988)
Rule/Topic: HearsayFacts:Plane crashed and killed passengers. Surviving family sued manufacturer.Manufacturer introduced report that concluded it was pilot error.TC: Admitted report.AP: affirm, but TC should have let surviving spouse introduce more from own investigation.Holding: Yes, admissible.Reasoning: Admissible reports are not inadmissible merely because they state a conclusion or opinion. As long as the conclusion is based on a factual investigation and satisfies the Rule’s trustworthiness requirement, it should be admissible along with other portions of the report.803(8)(iii) doesn’t distinguish between fact/opinionFRE: 803(8)(iii)
Palmer v. Hoffman 318 U.s. 109 (1943)
Rule/Topic: hearsayFacts:railroad prepared a report in prep for litigation.Holding: No, not admissible.Reasoning: buseiness of railroad is railroading, not accident reporting.The accident report was going to reflect their own interest for litigation.Report is not trustworthyFRE: 803(6)
