CHAPTER 2 RELEVANCE REVISITED P JANICKE 2012 DIRECT

CHAPTER 2: RELEVANCE REVISITED P. JANICKE 2012

DIRECT vs. CIRCUMSTANTIAL: DOES IT MATTER ? ? DIRECT – EYEWITNESS TO A FACT IN ISSUE CIRCUMSTANTIAL – EVERYTHING ELSE 2012 Chap. 2 -- Relevance 2

WHICH IS MORE PERSUASIVE? • TRADITIONALLY: EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY WAS THOUGHT MORE RELIABLE • CONSIDER: – EYEWITNESS WHO HAD A GRUDGE, AND IS A CONVICTED PERJURER AND FRAUD 2012 Chap. 2 -- Relevance 3

• MODERN RESEARCH HAS SHOWN EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IS QUITE UNRELIABLE IN IDENTIFYING STRANGERS! 2012 Chap. 2 -- Relevance 4

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CAN BE POWERFUL • D’s FINGERPRINTS FOUND • D’S KNIFE FOUND • D EARLIER THREATENED TO KILL VICTIM • LOOT FOUND UNDER D’S BED • D HAS FIVE PRIOR CONVICTIONS WITH SAME M. O. 2012 Chap. 2 -- Relevance 5

THE CONCEPT OF PROBATIVE VALUE • TENDENCY TO CONVINCE SOMEONE ON A RELEVANT FACT 2012 Chap. 2 -- Relevance 6

• JUDGES HAVE TO “WEIGH” PROBATIVE VALUE – IN RULING ON RELEVANCE vs. THE COUNTERWEIGHTS (R. 403: UNFAIR PREJUDICE; WASTE OF TIME; CONFUSION OF THE JURY) – AN APPLES-TO-ORANGES COMPARISON, BUT DONE EVERY DAY 2012 Chap. 2 -- Relevance 7

ADMISSIBILITY vs. SUFFICIENCY 2012 Chap. 2 -- Relevance 8

ADMISSIBILITY • MEANS A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE CAN BE RECEIVED 2012 Chap. 2 -- Relevance 9

SUFFICIENCY • MEANS ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT REASONABLE JURORS COULD FIND THAT THE PROOF STANDARD (PREPONDERANCE, REASONABLE DOUBT, CLEAR AND CONVINCING, ETC. ) WAS 2012 MET Chap. 2 -- Relevance 10

• ADMISSIBLE REFERS TO A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE • SUFFICIENCY REFERS TO THE TOTALITY OF THE ADMITTED EVIDENCE 2012 Chap. 2 -- Relevance 11

PROBLEMS/CASES: STATE v. CHAPPLE • SHOWS THE CAREFUL CHECKING OF PROBATIVE VALUE vs. RISK OF PREJUDICE • UNFORTUNATE ROLE OF JURORS: – SOMETHING AWFUL HAS HAPPENED – THEY HAVE ONLY ONE WAY TO “DO SOMETHING” ABOUT IT 2012 Chap. 2 -- Relevance 12

THE HALF-OPEN DOOR RULE(S) • SEVERAL OF THEM IN EVIDENCE LAW • ONE IS ABOUT DOCUMENTS: – INTRO OF PORTION BY ONE PARTY IS THOUGHT OF AS WAIVER OF OBJECS. ON ANY RELATED PARTS OFFERED BY ADVERSE PARTY [R 106] – R 106: CAN REQUIRE ADMISSION OF THE OTHER PARTS “AT THAT TIME” – i. e. , NOW 2012 Chap. 2 -- Relevance 13

PROBABILISTIC EVIDENCE • HELPFUL, BUT CAN BE MISUSED • OFTEN COUNTERINTUITIVE • COMMON BIRTHDAYS IN THIS ROOM? 2012 Chap. 2 -- Relevance 14

PROBLEMS/CASES • • • Old Chief 2 E 2 F 2 G Exercise 2 2012 Chap. 2 -- Relevance 15