Relevance Flashcards
AB in the civil case and the US in the criminal case wish to introduce letters written by defendant Clyde Barker to Lucas Smith, a member of Whale Watch, an organization that advocates for the violent interruption of any attempt to hunt whales. The defendants object to the introduction of these letters. What facts would the proponents of the letters need to show to make them relevant?
Relevant to establish that he is in the organization too if the letters contain information about the organization, the mission etc.
Shortly after the explosion, defendants Gerald Garnosio and Clyde Barker are involved in an automobile accident about a half mile from the AB site. The car in which they are driving is damaged to the point of not being drivable and is towed to an impound lot where the contents are inventoried. Found in the car are:a. Pages from the “Anarchist’s Cookbook” which describe how to make an incendiary device
Relevant because it shows that D would know it is an incendiary device
Shortly after the explosion, defendants Gerald Garnosio and Clyde Barker are involved in an automobile accident about a half mile from the AB site. The car in which they are driving is damaged to the point of not being drivable and is towed to an impound lot where the contents are inventoried. Found in the car are:A letter addressed to Lucas Smith written by George Ginaris
Is relevant only if it relates to any of the material issues of case
Shortly after the explosion, defendants Gerald Garnosio and Clyde Barker are involved in an automobile accident about a half mile from the AB site. The car in which they are driving is damaged to the point of not being drivable and is towed to an impound lot where the contents are inventoried. Found in the car are:A cellular telephone which shows it was used to call a number at about the time of the explosion
Conditional relevancy – need to prove some other fact to make it relevant – Must first show that Garnosio or Barker had the phone?
Flora Welch claims that her husband was killed in the blast while touring the AB site. A number of bodies were found at the site which could not be identified because of burns and the action of chemicals on the bodies. Welch sues AB. To prove that her husband was one of the unidentified bodies, Welch offers proof that her husband was on a business trip to St. Louis at the time of the explosion, that he never returned from the trip, and offers an e-mail she received the night before the blast from her husband which read, “I am looking forward to the tour of AB tomorrow. I hope they still have free beer.” Is this e-mail relevant and if so to what is it relevant?
It is relevant because it makes it more likely that he was at AB – jury can decide
John Clark was driving an AB delivery truck near the AB site at the time of the blast. As the sound of the blast reach his location, Clark drove his truck into a residence, causing severe damage to the building. The owner of the building sued Clark and AB. The parties agreed on all of the facts except whether Clark was on a “fun and frolic” detour at the time of the accident. The home owner wishes to offer evidence from an eye witness that Clark was falling asleep at the wheel of the truck at the time of the blast and that it startled him, causing him to run into the residence? Is this relevant?
Not relevant to the remaining issue of fun or frolic
The ATF and the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Bomb and Arson squad investigate the scene of the blasts and find evidence that a small device was attached by a magnet to each of the ammonia tank cars. From what is left of the devices, they draw the conclusion that a cellular telephone was part of the device and they find traces of C4, an explosive. The government wishes to introduce testimony from Sal Grasso, about his sale of 12 cellular telephones to defendant Clyde Barker over the 3 month period before the blast. The defendants object that this testimony is irrelevant. What arguments would you make for the government for the admission of this testimony? How should the defense respond to these arguments?
Relevant to prove that he had access to cell phones. D would argue not relevant because does not prove that cell phones were used or that he had a cell phone at the time
AB surveillance video show that the bomb blast occurred at 12:05 pm. The government calls Jason Stevens, the engineer of the train moving the ammonia tank cars. He is asked to describe what he was doing at noon on the day of the explosion, and for the period leading up to the blast. The defense objects that what Stevens was doing before the blast is irrelevant. How should the judge rule?
Relevant because? It affects his ability to remember or perceive was he saw?
George DePriest, the executive at AB responsible for the management of Sea World is called by the government to testify about his receipt of the handwritten letters containing the demand to release the Sea World mammals. He is asked how the threat in the letters made him feel. The defense objects that Mr. DePriest’s feelings are not relevant. How should the judge rule?
Relevant because fear is an element of the crime
C4 explosive looks similar to gray modeling clay. The “Anarchist’s Cookbook” contains a formula for making C4. At one step, you mix chemicals in a bathtub filled with ice. Among the chemicals used is potassium. The government wishes to call Kelly Black, who cleans rooms at the Motel 6 in South St. Louis. George Ginaris was registered at the Motel 6 for the week before the explosion and Black cleaned his room each day. She will say that:Two days before the blast, she remembers seeing modeling clay in Ginaris’s room
relevant because makes the fact that there was a C4 explosive more likely
C4 explosive looks similar to gray modeling clay. The “Anarchist’s Cookbook” contains a formula for making C4. At one step, you mix chemicals in a bathtub filled with ice. Among the chemicals used is potassium. The government wishes to call Kelly Black, who cleans rooms at the Motel 6 in South St. Louis. George Ginaris was registered at the Motel 6 for the week before the explosion and Black cleaned his room each day. She will say that:On the day of the blast she remembers picking up a jar which had a small amount of a purple power and was labeled “Potassium Permanganate” in the bathroom of Ginaris’s room
relevant because potassium is used to make it
C4 explosive looks similar to gray modeling clay. The “Anarchist’s Cookbook” contains a formula for making C4. At one step, you mix chemicals in a bathtub filled with ice. Among the chemicals used is potassium. The government wishes to call Kelly Black, who cleans rooms at the Motel 6 in South St. Louis. George Ginaris was registered at the Motel 6 for the week before the explosion and Black cleaned his room each day. She will say that:On the day of the blast she saw small pieces of what she thought was a waxy substance in the bathroom of Ginaris’s room
relevant because shows there was something in there
C4 explosive looks similar to gray modeling clay. The “Anarchist’s Cookbook” contains a formula for making C4. At one step, you mix chemicals in a bathtub filled with ice. Among the chemicals used is potassium. The government wishes to call Kelly Black, who cleans rooms at the Motel 6 in South St. Louis. George Ginaris was registered at the Motel 6 for the week before the explosion and Black cleaned his room each day. She will say that:The day before the blast, when she knocked on Ginaris’s door, he told her to wait a moment. When she entered, he was just shutting the drawer in the dresser and she thought she saw some dark substance on his hand
-? Not sure
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 that Black’s views are not relevant? How should the judge rule?
Issues of bias and witness credibility are always relevant
Herb Walker lived on the outskirts of the area affected by the gas clouds. He sues AB claiming that his exposure to the gas clouds caused him to come down with chemical pneumonia, a form of pneumonia caused by over-exposure to certain chemicals including ammonia. AB wishes to respond with evidence that not all forms of ammonia will cause chemical pneumonia. Walker objects that this is irrelevant. How should the judge rule?
Relevant because makes the issue – did it cause his pneumonia – more or less likely (depends on whether it affects the ammonia that was released in the AB cloud)
