Introduction Flashcards
Direct or circumstantial evidence: a. To prove that a defendant Clyde Barker put the letter in the mail to Lucas Smith, proof that it was received by Smith with a cancelled stamp and a post mark on the letter;
Circumstantial
Direct or circumstantial evidence: On the issue of whether law enforcement was aware of the possibility of a chemical accident on may 5, 2008, at the time of the blast, testimony that firemen arriving at the scene were already dressed in hazmat suits with respirators.
Circumstantial evidence _ we_re inferring that hazmat suits -> prior knowledge
Direct or circumstantial evidence: On the issue of whether defendant Clyde Barker was at the AB site on May 5, 2008, that a cellular telephone registered in his name was found at the AB site in the police investigation after the explosions;
Circumstantial evidence
Direct or circumstantial evidence: On the issue of whether defendant clyde barker was at the ab site on may 5, 2008, a person who knows barker personally states that he saw barker on the ab site just before the explosions;
Direct
Direct or circumstantial evidence: On the issue of whether defendant clyde barker was at the ab site on may 5, 2008, a witness will state that a friend of barker stated to the witness that they had seen barker on the ab site just before the explosions.
Direct
In the criminal case, the judge believes that the government is not making a strong enough case and begins to offer suggestions to the government of how to proceed. Is this proper?
No
In ruling on the admissibility of evidence, a judge uses one of two tests. Describe these tests and how they differ.
1) The judge lets the jury decide the factual issue if enough evidence exists that a rational jury could resolve the facutal issue either way
2) The judge decides all preliminary questions related to admissibility of evidence that are not related to conditional relevance
In the criminal case, the government offers the testimony of Kelly Black, who cleaned the room at the Motel 6 in which defendant George Ginaris stay in the week before the explosions. She offers testimony which could link him to the manufacture of the explosive used at AB. Defendant George Ginaris is African-American. He wishes to offer testimony that Kelly Black has expressed racist views and has referred to African-Americans in derogatory terms frequently. The government objects and the judge sustains the objection, not allowing this testimony. What steps must defendant Ginaris take to preserve this issue for appeal? Describe the different burdens defendant Ginaris in the court of appeals, depending on how he preserves the issue.
Must make offer of proof to preserve the record to give court information about the evidence. Standard of review: abuse of discretion
Defendant Clyde Barker fires his lawyer during trial and is allowed to represent himself. Soon after, he wishes to object to testimony and makes the following statement to the judge: _Judge, there is no way you can let the jury hear that evidence. It is irrelevant and immaterial._ The judge overrules this objection. On review, what standard will the court of appeals use to determine whether the ruling of the court was correct?
Abuse of discretion - Not specific enough; what did you hear the person say next
In his case in chief, defendant George Ginaris wishes to introduce the testimony of Lucas Smith about how whales and orcas have the same intelligence as humans, so that penning them is a crime. Before Smith can take the stand, the government objects that his testimony has no relevance to the issues before the court. The judge sustains the objection and will not allow Smith to testify. What steps must defendant Ginaris take to preserve this issue for appeal?
Offer of proof; introduce testimony; explain why its relevant
During interrogation, defendant Gerald Garnosio made statements which the government wishes to introduce against him in trial. Garnosio_s lawyer moves for a pre-trial hearing on the admissibility of the statements and a hearing is held. After hearing all of the evidence, the judge issues an order that the statements were made freely and voluntarily and not in violation of any rights of defendant Garnosio. At trial, the government introduces the statement and Garnosio seeks to prove the circumstances surrounding the interrogation to allow him to argue to the jury that the statements were not made voluntarily. The government objects that this issue has already been decided. How should the judge rule?
Jury decides the weight and credibility of piece of evidence
In trying to show that it was not negligent to keep the chlorine bleach in such proximity to the ammonia tank, AB introduces the testimony of an engineering expert about how unexpected it was for the ammonia tank to rupture. As the judge listened to the expert testify, he began to suspect that the engineer was neither a particularly good engineer nor a particularly honest witness. The judge reviews the possible resolutions which include: a. If AB thinks this testimony is important, the judge has no choice but to allow it; b. Tell the jury to disregard the expert_s testimony as the judge has found it to lack credibility; c. Tell the jury to disregard the testimony if the judge believes the jury will find the testimony incredible; d. Tell the jury to consider the testimony as it would of any other witness, if the judge believes that it is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Which should the judge use?
- 105 limited admissibility; D; jury’s determination if the witness is credible; gives credibility instruction
- Judge only deals with credibility at pre-trial stage and lets evidence in; not comment on the credibility to the jury
If the jury finds for AB and the judge still has doubts about the credibility of the expert, what is the correct course of conduct for the judge?
Wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove case, may be able to overturn the verdict; judge can only go into credibility at pre-trial level
