criminal evidence exam 1

Circumstantial evidence-

-Circumstantial evidence requires inferences or deductions of fact derived from proof of a separate fact or facts. Circumstantial evidence means that the principal fact is inferred or deduced from proof of a separate fact or set of circumstances. Circumstantial and direct evidence are generally held to be of equal force, value, and weight.

Jurisdiction of courts

A court must take judicial notice of its own jurisdiction - both subject matter and geographical jurisdiction. When properly supplied with information, a court may take notice that a particular location existed within the court's jurisdiction. Example: A crime alleged to have happened at a named motel in Beverly Hills having a zip code of 90210 would be within the territorial jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

Geography and geographical facts

A judge could properly take judicial notice of the: Fact that states make up the United States; General flow of the Mississippi River; Location of major mountain ranges, rivers, and lakes; Location and population of cities within states; Distances between well-known cities or states; Fact that a particular county is within a state.

Facts relating to nature and science

A judge may properly take notice of elementary principles of physics, climate of the state, the principles behind ballistics, fingerprint identification, blood groupings, DNA uniqueness, and radar. Some new principles may require explanation each time that general scientific acceptance is obtained. Example: Early DNA evidence required expert testimony concerning the scientific principles involved. Today, judicial notice will generally be sufficient concerning DNA principles.

Municipal ordinances

A municipal court must take notice of its own municipal ordinances. General Rule: In courts other than municipal courts, judicial notice will not be taken of municipal ordinances. Proof of municipal ordinances must be pleaded and proved as other evidence,unless a controlling law holds to the contrary. Appellate courts generally will not take judicial notice of municipal ordinances.

Prosecuting Attorney's responsibilities

A prosecutor has the discretion, power, and responsibility to decide whether to prosecute or decline to pursue a criminal case. The prosecutor represents the government, whether local, state, or federal, and must introduce evidence to meet the burden of proof. A prosecutor determines the order and method of presenting evidence through witness testimony. At the beginning and end of the trial, the prosecutor is permitted to make opening and closing arguments/statements. Evidence favorable to the accused and known to the prosecutor must generally be disclosed to the defense. Evidence unlawfully obtained must not knowingly be used by the prosecution. Under Brady v. Maryland (1963), the Supreme Court held that prosecution withholding of evidence favorable to the accused may be improper. Brady noted that where the defense had requested exculpatory information of material evidence, the prosecution commits a due process error by withholding such evidence.

Law of the forum

All courts must take judicial notice of the law of the forum. Such law includes both statutory law and case decisional law. Precedent in the forum state generally allows notice of previously accepted scientific principles if prior case law accepted the principle. Examples: Notice taken of the reliability of DNA mapping and of fingerprinting based on prior case law acceptance.

Insanity

All defendants are presumed to be sane at the time of the alleged crime and competent to stand trial. The presumptions of sanity and competency are rebuttable. In some jurisdictions, to rebut presumption of sanity,a defendant needs to raise the issue and introduce some evidence to support the theory. In such a case, the burden to prove sanity is on the prosecution. Most state courts require that the defendant introduce substantial evidence of insanity first; then the prosecution must rebut this evidence in order to prevail. Many jurisdictions treat insanity as an affirmative defense. The defendant may have the burden of pleading and proving insanity by a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. Federal law treats insanity as an affirmative defense that a defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence. Shifting the burden of proof to federal defendants has been determined not to violate due process.

Federal law

Article VI of the United States Constitution provides that the Constitution, laws made pursuant to it, and all treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. All federal, state, and municipal judges must take judicial notice of the U.S. Constitution, federal law, and treaties without formal proof in court.

Reasons for the rules of evidence

Because most jurors are impressionable and unacquainted with the law, specific rules for limiting and filtering evidence emerged Rules developed to ensure that evidence was dependable, credible, and trustworthy Rules to exclude unreliable and unfair evidence developed to help ensure a defendant a fair trial Constitutions, legislatures, and courts have fostered the development of the rules of evidence, which continue to change and evolve 9/6

Maddox v. Montgomery

Brady doctrine- prosecutor has duty to disclose all exculpatory evidence to the defendant Evidence that is important to the case should be admitted

Burden on the prosecution

Burden of proof starts and remains on the prosecution throughout the trial; it never shifts. Except for affirmative defenses in some jurisdictions,no defendant in any criminal trial possesses any burden of proof. The finder of fact must be persuaded that all the elements of the crime charged have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution must prove that the act was committed, that the defendant committed the act within the jurisdiction, and that the act violated the law of the jurisdiction. Burden of the production of the evidence On the prosecution

Burden of the accused

Burden of the accused General Rule: When a defendant alleges an affirmative defense, the defendant must introduce evidence to prove the defense. Defendant has both the burden of going forward with the evidence and burden of proof. In a small number of jurisdictions, when an affirmative defense has been raised and some evidence introduced,the prosecution must disprove the defense. When a defendant introduces evidence that, if believed, would constitute an affirmative defense, a jury instruction explaining the affirmative defense should be given. A court may not properly shift a portion of the burden of proof to the defendant by offering erroneous jury instructions. When a jury instruction makes it seem that if the defendant failed to disprove an assumed element, then it may consider such element as proved, such an instruction improperly shifts the burden of proof to the defendant. An instruction that relieves the prosecution from proving an element of the case/crime is frequently considered reversible error.

History and historical facts

Commonly accepted historical facts that are readily known or easily verified can be the subject of judicial notice. Examples: The date a war started or ended, dates when a President held office, when the Great Depression occurred, or a certain date on which a local courthouse had a fire. Other Examples: Facts might include where intersecting streets serve as an accepted center of a city, or they may indicate where a statue dedicated to a war hero is located, or the name of the major street that runs through a city. A judge may not properly take notice of a historical fact known only to the judge and not others. Judge cannot take judicial notice of age of juvenile because that is an element of the adjudication. A judge need not have personal knowledge of history or historical facts of which he or she takes judicial notice.

Commonwealth v. Howlett text page 789

Couldn't retry him because double jeopardy applies once the judge starts to hear evidence Ruling- when the judge takes judicial notice on his or her own ruling they have to give the other side time to respond and decide it is common knowledge

Judicial notice of laws

Courts are permitted to judicially notice most laws. A court must take judicial notice of the law of the jurisdiction in which it sits. Example: An Oregon court would judicially notice the law of Oregon, including the Oregon constitution, federal law, and the federal constitution. The Oregon court would take notice of appropriate state and federal case law. A federal court will take judicial notice of the law of the state in which it sits as well as all federal law.

Intro

Criminal trials and their procedures initially appear confusing to the untrained observer This confusion may be magnified by the exclusion of evidence that seems necessary to finding the truth Developing some knowledge of the history of the rules of evidence will assist the student in understanding how the rules operate

Conservation of time

Cumulative evidence wastes court time because it offers unnecessary and repetitive evidence Rejection of cumulative evidence supports the principle of judicial economy Courts must be careful in deciding when evidence is truly cumulative and when it corroborates other evidence

Avoidance of undue prejudice to the accused

Defendant's prior criminal record is generally excluded from a prosecutor's evidence of guilt because a jury might place unfair weight on past criminal behavior Gruesome color photographs are sometimes excluded because they could inflame the jury to the point where it might make an emotional decision that would be unfair to a defendant

Burden of proof

Defined: the burden of proof is the obligation that rests on a party to establish the ultimate truth of a given proposition by the level of proof demanded by law The burden of production means that a party has an initial duty during its case in chief to introduce evidence to attempt to prove or disprove a particular point or issue The ultimate burden of proof never shifts during a trial and remains with the government at all times Burden of going forward (with the evidence)

Direct evidence

Direct evidence refers to proof that tends to prove the existence of a fact in issue without reference to any other fact. Direct evidence points to a question at issue and resolves the issue one way or the other. No deductions of fact are necessary with evidence that directly proves a point in issue. E.g., "I saw him stab the victim." Direct evidence does not always have to be oral evidence it could be a video or in some senses fingerprints

Egyptian legal system

Egyptian courts were composed of 30 judges who advised the accused person of the charges in a writing Accused persons, in writing, could deny or admit guilt, or argue for a lesser penalty No speeches were given in court, legal advocates had no part in the process The 30 judges determined the guilt or innocence of the accused These courts were primarily for the upper class Its a recognized legal system

Summary ch. 1

Every organized society uses some form of evidence to determine deviance from minimal social norms. Modern nations have built on the experiences of past civilizations and nation states to develop their respective legal systems involving evidence. Rules of evidence and their practice will continue to develop and evolve as history marches forward.

Reasons for Excluding Evidence

Evidence that would help the jury or judge determine the true facts is often excluded from consideration. Public policy reasons, court decisions, and logic generally support the exclusion of otherwise important evidence. Constitutional considerations, privileges, and concepts of relevancy and materiality may exclude truthful evidence. Protection of interests and relationships Admission of evidence that would seriously harm existing relationships and do more harm than good can be excluded in some cases Truth in court is sacrificed to protect and foster human relationships Husband/wife confidential communication and testimonial privileges Attorney/client privilege Religious confessor/ Penitent privilege Doctor / patient privilege in civil/some criminal cases

Introduction ch. 4

Fact finders must reach a verdict based on: Facts presented in the form of evidence Oral, physical, expert testimony evidence, etc Information judicially noticed by the judge(boiling temp)- Legal presumptions and approved inferences- weaker than presumptions Flee state- did crime/guilty Not suicide- PP love life (reported stolen merchandise, man found with it) Stipulations offered by the defense and prosecutor Both parties of lawsuit agree something existed- acknowledge a guy was at crime scene and agree Pretrial motions by both parties may exclude some evidence

General approach to admissibility

General Rule: All evidence is presumed admissible unless it is excluded by a proper objection/legal argument. Objections are usually related to the form or the substance of the question. A. Objections as to Form: Questions should not be confusing, misleading, argumentative, compound- asking 2 questions in one sentence/ at the same time, or leading on direct examination. Leading questions are allowed on cross examination B. Objections as to Substance: Questions must ask for answers that are relevant (does it prove or disprove anything?), material (does the answer give an important fact?), and competent (does the answer involve illegality?).

Application of the rules of evidence in State and federal courts

Generally, federal evidence rules apply in federal courts and state rules apply in state courts. Court interpretations of the rules of evidence provide interpretation and gloss to the actual text of the rules, whether state or federal. Neither state nor federal rules of evidence are allowed to violate the federal constitution. On occasion, federal law may limit the admission of evidence in a state court where the evidence was obtained in violation of federal law.

Prohibition of consideration of unreliable evidence

Hearsay and lay witness opinion evidence can be excluded when it may be unreliable Example: Lay opinion on the cause of death may be less than accurate because a lay witness is not sufficiently knowledgeable about medical matters.

Burden to prove all elements of the Crime

If a particular crime has seven elements necessary to prove that the crime happened, each element's existence must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is a failure of proof concerning an essential element of a crime, the jury should not vote to convict a defendant of that crime. Conviction of a lesser included offense may be appropriate where the failure of proof as to one element indicates guilt of a lesser included crime for which those elements were proved.

City v. Gamez text page 791

Important that she was within the city limits because if she is violating either the state law or city ordinances Crucial to the prosecution District court took judicial notice

Adoption of the Federal rules of Evidence

In 1972, the Supreme Court of the United States adopted specific rules of evidence for use in federal courts, but Congress had to approve the rules. Congress approved (1974) a modified version of the "Rules of Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates," which applied only to federal courts. The most recent revisions went into effect on December 1, 2015. Prior revisions occurred in prior years. 2016 is the last time there were amendments Some states have adopted rules of evidence that mirror the federal rules with some slight changes. The federal rules of evidence do not address privilege Federal rules of evidence only apply to federal courts

Function of the jury

In a trial by jury, the jury's function is to decide the facts from contradictory evidence presented in court. From conflicting testimony, a jury determines the facts and applies the law as explained by the judge's jury instructions. Jurors are permitted to use normal reasoning and powers of deduction in the quest for a verdict. The jury can consider only the in-court evidence and substitutes for evidence while outside influences should have no effect. Jurors are not allowed to take their cell phones in with them and od research on the case or look at newspaper articles- makes it juror misconduct and result in the reversal of a case

Rules of Evidence in Criminal Cases compared to Rules in Civil Cases

In criminal cases, the defendant carries a presumption of innocence until a conviction, if it happens, occurs In civil lawsuits, the parties approach in rough equality, neither party having an initial presumption of prevailing in the case For one side to win they have to prove it just enough over half In a criminal case the government plaintiff's burden of proof is heavy, while in a civil case the plaintiff need only prevail by a preponderance Civil verdicts for money damages are sometimes obtained in a separate suit following an acquittal in a criminal case Another example of differences: in some states, the doctor/patient confidentiality privilege applies only in civil cases and not in criminal cases

Georgia case, Robinson v. State text page 792

In georgia venue is considered an element of the crime, that has to be proven to make the crime out The case was reversed and they could retry it because she was the one that appealed

Role of the trial judge in evidence matters

In pretrial hearings, the judge makes rulings concerning contested evidentiary issues. During the trial: the judge decides matters concerning the admission or exclusion of evidence. the judge may have to rule on issues that were the subject of pretrial motions that are renewed by attorneys. Example: Search and seizure, jeopardy, or speedy trial issues where the defense is objecting to preserve the record for appeal. The judge protects witnesses from attorney excesses,takes judicial notice where appropriate, and determines competency of witnesses. Bench trials: the judge serves as the finder of fact.

Summary ch. 5`

Judicial notice is a substitute for evidence and involves facts that cannot be reasonably considered in serious dispute. When judicial notice has been taken, contrary evidence will not be admitted to contradict. Judicial notice saves time and money for courts and the litigants and dispenses with proof that is not necessary to entertain. Judicial notice is generally common sense

Matters of general knowledge

Judicial notice of common knowledge requires that the fact or matter be: A. Familiar to the majority of humankind, or B. Understood by those familiar with a particular field. Judicially noticed facts may concern purely local knowledge. Judicially noticed facts may be known throughout the nation or the world: That whiskey and rum are intoxicating liquors is generally known and their qualities are not subject to any reasonable dispute.

Introduction ch. 5

Judicial notice permits a court to recognize that certain facts exist, that are not in reasonable dispute, without having actual evidence introduced. Judicial notice serves as a substitute for evidence; contrary evidence is excluded/not admitted. Judicial notice allows a court to recognize that gravity causes items to fall to earth; that when humans consume alcohol, their motor skills deteriorate; and other matters of usual human knowledge that are beyond reasonable dispute As another substitute for evidence, presumptions and inferences allow proof of a derivative fact by proving a preceding fact. Stipulations are agreements between the parties that certain facts are not in dispute and serve as an additional category of substitutes for evidence. Judicial notice: The recognition of open and notorious facts that a judge may properly take or act upon without proof because the facts are indisputable within the court's jurisdiction or are readily verifiable by standard reference works. Where judicial notice has been taken by the court, no formal presentation of proof must be made. Judicial notice is taken of facts that are so well-established as a matter of common knowledge as to be beyond reasonable dispute. If any doubt exists concerning the fact noticed or whether it is a fact of common knowledge, judicial notice should not be taken by courts. As a general rule for judicial notice to be properly taken: 1. The fact must be authoritatively settled and not subject to any reasonable dispute and not uncertain, and 2. The matter must be of common and general knowledge to persons in the relevant field of knowledge. Judicial notice can't be used to fill in a missing element in a case Courts may consult reference works for verification of facts that are beyond dispute. Historical works, scientific reference books, language and medical journals, dictionaries, calendars, maps,and encyclopedias are some of the sources a court might use to verify well-known facts. Judicial notice involves the exercise of judicial discretion, and where the fact desired to be judicially noticed involves a reasonable dispute or involves a fact not settled, a judge may/should decline to take notice. Judicial notice may be taken upon the request of either party or by the judge upon his or her own motion

In Re Winship

Juvenile case The the rule is that when a juvenile is charged with a crime that could have been done by an adult, needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt Court came to conclusion that due process needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt when a juvenile is charged with a crime that would be committed by an adult

Legal evidence-

Legal evidence refers to all admissible evidence, both oral and documentary,that will help prove or disprove a point. Legal evidence is that which is intended to be used at proceedings before judges, courts, commissions, and referees. Legal evidence is evidence that demonstrates the very point at issue.

Law of sister states

Many states allow judicial notice to be taken of the constitutions, laws, and common law of sister states. General Rule: Reasonable notice to opposing parties may be required to avoid unfair surprise. Laws of other states are readily verifiable by resort to a law library or state-run legal Web sites.

Language, abbreviations, and symbols

Meanings of words and phrases can be judicially noticed. Standard, well-recognized dictionaries provide ready reference. Abbreviations for states, academic degrees, and elements on the periodic table are appropriate items for judicial notice. Should not take judicial notice of the meaning of obscure slang words or expressions common to a small group.

Summary ch. 3

Meeting the proof-beyond-a-reasonable- doubt standard is crucial for the prosecution. Defendant, except for affirmative defenses, has absolutely no burden of proof. At start of a case, the prosecution has the burden of going forward with the evidence, but the burden of proof to prove guilt never shifts.

Early attempts to determine guilt or innocence

Most cultures historically have sought fair methods of reaching the truth in resolving criminal cases, but some cultures followed unfair, barbaric practices Few civilizations developed well organized, continuous bodies of legal ideas and concepts that could be called a true legal system Wigmore identified 16 legal systems that developed: Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Chinese- oldest one around, Hindu, Hebrew, Greek, Maritime, Roman, Celtic, Germanic, Church, Japanese, Mohammedan, Slavic, Romanesque, and Anglican(english common law)-one this country uses except louisiana. Modern legal systems adopted some of the best aspects of some of the older legal systems

Sufficiency of evidence

On appeal, the appellate court determines whether a rational jury could have logically reached the verdict. Caution: An appellate court does not re-weigh the evidence. For appeal purposes, the evidence is construed in the light that is most favorable to the prosecution: a presumption favors the conviction. A reviewing court considering the sufficiency of the evidence will affirm a conviction when a rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Law of foreign countries

One federal appellate noted that federal courts may take judicial notice of foreign law when the parties have given written notice of the intent to involve/invoke foreign law. Federal courts will be required to take judicial notice where a federal law or a treaty specifically requires it. State courts are bound by federal treaties. Some state courts will take judicial notice of foreign law when relevant and so requested.

Preponderance of the evidence

Plaintiffs in civil cases prevail when they meet the lower burden of proof: preponderance of the evidence Preponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of evidence If believable evidence in the case were arranged so that 51% was believable evidence for the plaintiff, the plaintiff would win the case If believable evidence were equally divided, 50% for each side, the civil defendant would prevail in the case because the civil plaintiff had the burden of proof

Pretrial flow of evidence

Police officers and evidence technicians must collect, preserve, and analyze evidence to ready it for trial. Police officers must identify people who will be trial witnesses. At a preliminary hearing, the prosecution must present evidence sufficient to demonstrate probable cause that the defendant did the prohibited act. Police must show sufficient evidence to the prosecutor to convince the prosecutor to pursue an indictment or information. If the grand jury is to indict, the police must be able to give the prosecutor sufficient evidence to procure an indictment by a showing of probable cause. If the defendant files a motion to suppress some of the evidence, police officers will need to testify so that the judge may rule on the motion. Pretrial hearings may result in some evidence being ruled as inadmissible to prove guilt.

Summary ch. 4

Pretrial motions affect evidence that may be admitted at trial, although efforts may be renewed to get such evidence admitted during the trial. Evidence is presented by the prosecutor first, followed by the defense presentation. All functionaries attending a trial have unique responsibilities to assure that the court dispenses justice. Evidence has varying levels of weight or believability that must be determined by the judge or jury.

Pretrial motions pertaining to evidence

Pretrial motions include: Defenses or objections that can be resolved without a full trial, e.g., Miranda issues, search and seizure concerns, double jeopardy issues, speedy trial challenges. Challenges to the court's jurisdiction, to fairness of the court, to the statement of charges, and to defendant's competency. Challenges of a constitutional nature are initially raised in pretrial motions: due process, jeopardy, right to counsel, and self-incrimination issues. Fourth Amendment challenges involving search and seizure are initially addressed by pretrial motions. If the defendants wins any of these it excludes evidence from trial

Beyond a reasonable doubt

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a requirement under the due process clause of the fourteenth Amendment. In re Winship , 397 U.S. 358(1970) When all the evidence has been evaluated,the individual juror possesses an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge, he or she has found proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not required that a judge or jury find a defendant guilty beyond all possible doubt. Some states require a jury instruction that explains the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The exact wording of a state statute should be followed where local law mandates it. An erroneous jury instruction may prove to be worse that not giving one at all. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not beyond all doubt, but a jury instruction must not allow a conviction on a lesser or lower standard.

Use of evidence at the probation hearing

Proper presentation of evidence may result in probation rather than incarceration in an appropriate case. General rules of evidence applied before and during a trial have little application to presentence reports by probation/parole departments. Hearsay evidence may be included in probation reports offered to a judge. All the rules that apply at trial and pretrial proceedings do not apply necessarily to post trial

Summary ch. 2

Prosecutors must review all the different types of evidence and determine likely admissibility to evaluate the success of a criminal case. Not all truthful and reliable evidence is admitted due to various considerations of fairness and public policy issues. Evidence issues are important at trial, the appellate stage, and during probation/parole hearings. State of Florida jury instruction of reasonable doubt 9/11

Hebrew legal system

Rabbis developed early law, which was closely connected to religion- also both governmental and religious system The Torah served as the foundation of the Hebrew legal system Judges were believed to be divinely inspired to give justice in individual cases, where legal counsel and the use of a jury were unknown

Modern legal system- Romanesque System

Roman law texts were resurrected and used as the basis of the Italian legal system. Bologna, Italy, became the center for the study of law, enticing scholars from most of Europe. Influenced by Italian legal scholarship, France completed the Code of Napoleon- influenced the Louisiana system, which included civil, criminal, and commercial codes of law (though it includes all of these it's called a civil law system) The code of Napoleon was adopted by Austria, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Switzerland and served as the basis for Louisiana law.

Procedure for offering and challenging evidence

Rule 103, Federal Rules of Evidence: Rulings of Evidence [State practice similar] (a) Preserving a claim of error. A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of the party and (1) if the ruling admits evidence, a party, on the record; (A) timely objects or moves to strike; and (B) states the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context; or (2) if the ruling excludes evidence, a party informs the court of its substance by an offer of proof, unless the substance was apparent from the context. A witness takes the stand and is asked a series of questions. 1. If the opposing side thinks that a particular question was improper, it must make a timely objection followed by a clear rationale. 2.The trial judge will listen to the reasons offered by both sides and issue a ruling excluding or admitting the testimony. When real evidence is to be offered, the proponent may show it to opposing counsel and have a witness authenticate it, unless an objection is made. Erroneous judicial rulings on exclusion or admissibility that did not affect substantial rights or did not affect the outcome, will not cause a reversal of the eventual verdict.

Judicial notice in criminal cases

Rule 201 judicial notice of Adjudicative facts (c) Taking Notice. The court: (1) may take judicial notice on its own; or (2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information. State courts general follow a similar procedure, especially if a state has adopted a state version of the Federal Rules of Evidence. General Rule: A court may not take judicial notice of an element of the crime charged. A judge in a criminal trial may take notice of facts, law, and scientific principles. Federal Rule of Evidence 201(g) states that in criminal cases, the judge must "instruct the jury that it may,but is not required to, accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed." The best practice would involve introducing evidence to support matters that could be judicially noticed in cases where there is any concern that a jury would not accept noticed matters.

Use of evidence when considering parole

Rules of evidence do not generally regulate which items of evidence can be considered when evaluating parole possibilities. Parole reports may contain evidence that was excluded from the original trial as well as evidence developed since the trial.

Development of the rules of evidence in the United States

Rules of evidence in various United States jurisdictions have developed over the past 200 years. Some rules are based on logic dating back hundreds of years. Other rules developed with little thought or reflection. Rules of evidence tend to be more restrictive in the United States as compared to the English system. Changes in the rules of evidence come from court decisions and from legislative enactments.

Future development of the rules of evidence

Rules of evidence reflect growth, development, and adaptation of law to new circumstances. Changes in the evidentiary rules will be expected in the future, possibly more rapidly than in the past. Some of the new rules will become a permanent addition to the law of evidence, while some may not withstand the pressure of time. When necessity and sound logic no longer support a particular rule, it should be amended or abolished. New rules of spouses testifying against each other: now the spouse(witness) can testify against their spouse(defendant) if they want to. Some states still follow the old law of: the spouse(defendant) can prevent their spouse(witness) from testifying if the defendant doesn't permit it

Clear and convincing evidence

Some civil cases require a higher standard of proof than a preponderance of the evidence Clear and convincing evidence falls between proof beyond a reasonable doubt and proof by a preponderance of the evidence Clear and convincing evidence may be required to correct a deed to real property, to correct a mistake in a contrast, to win suits on oral contracts or wills, or to establish the terms of a lost will

Reduction of Violations of Constitutional Standards

Some evidence may be excluded when obtained in violation of court-mandated rules such as the Miranda warnings. Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is generally excluded. When a defendant's confession has been obtained by coercion, the confession should be excluded from consideration by the jury or judge.

Alibi

Some jurisdictions hold that an alibi is an affirmative defense and others hold that it is not. An alibi defense, if believed by the jury, requires acquittal. Use of an alibi defense may require early notice to the prosecution to avoid unfair surprise to the government. Failure to give notice may prevent defense use of alibi witnesses; the defendant can always personally allege alibi. All an alibi defense need accomplish in order to win: create a reasonable doubt.

Administrative regulations

State courts generally must take judicial notice of state administrative regulations. Federal courts must take judicial notice of federal administrative law and regulations. Without this legal principle, much time, effort, and money would be wasted. Limitation: A court may not take notice of a regulation if the effect would be to remove the prosecutor's burden of proof on any element of a crime.

Uniform rules of Evidence

The National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws developed a set of evidence rules titled the Uniform Rules of Evidence, 1999, and amended them in 2005. The Federal Rules of Evidence had a great deal of influence on the Uniform Rules of Evidence. Each state that adopted the Uniform Rules of Evidence was free to make alterations to reflect local needs or to recognize established state precedents.

Roman legal system

The Romans produced the best developed legal system, which greatly influenced our present legal framework. There were three periods of Roman law: (1) the Period of the Republic, (2) the period of the Early Empire, and (3) the Period of the Later Empire. During the Period of the Republic, the lay courts were composed of judges who determined both law and fact, and there was no appeal. During the Early Empire Period, professional judges and juries were used with records being kept of the proceedings. During the Period of the Later Empire (550 A.D.), Justinian adjusted the legal system to a manageable form. Justinian's efforts produced the Pandects (or Digest), the Code, and the Institute. Although the Roman system ended with the fall of Rome, the precedents set by the Romans heavily influenced later thinkers and writers.

Defense Attorney's responsibilities

The Sixth Amendment granted the right to counsel in federal criminal cases. All states grant the right to counsel by state constitution; federal case law has extended the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to the states. Defense attorneys should force the government to prove its case, assert all reasonable defenses, and ensure that defendant's rights are not violated. Ineffective assistance of counsel can result in a new trial Not a total duty to the client, cannot allow client to lie on the stand Cases are rarely reversed on attorney incompetence When a convicted defendant alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must prove that: A. The counsel's performance was defective; and B. The deficient performance prejudiced the defendant's case, resulting in an unfair trial. Defense counsel is not permitted to allow perjured testimony by either the defendant or defense witnesses. Defense counsel may offer opening and closing statements to put the defendant's case in the best light

Mistake of law Definitions and distinctions

The burden of proof relates to the merit, weight, and believability of the evidence produced The fact that a trial judge admitted evidence does not necessarily mean that a jury will accept its weight and believe in its truth. This just means the evidence met a threshold to be admitted into court, it is up to the jury to decide if the evidence proves guilt or that it is true The concept of burden of proof denotes the prosecution's duty to establish, to the jury's satisfaction, of the truth of a given issue or proposition

Chinese

The chinese legal system appears to be the world's oldest, dating back before 2500 BCE The chinese system recognized little difference between civil and criminal law The chinese system contemplated a natural order of things and considered written law to be good only it if correctly captured the law of nature Lawyers, as known today, did not exist, and guilt or innocence was determined by one person, from emperor down to magistrate Decisions were reviewable by higher courts

Greek legal system

The early greek legal system used a type of jury system to determine the fate of an accused The greeks used a list of eligible jurors and randomly selected actual jurors from the list In the trial of Socrates in 400 B.C.E., 501 jurors voted and found a guilty verdict by a majority of only 60 All citizens were potentially eligible for jury service Traditional judges, as we know them, did not exist, but a presiding magistrate was chosen by lot

Introduction ch. 3

The prosecution has the obligation to prove the guilt of the defendant by the strong standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." The failure to properly present the prosecution's case may allow a guilty person to go free. The prosecution must convince the jury or judge that each and every element of the crime charged has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As a strong general rule, the defense generally has no burden of proof, but will contest the prosecution's weakest evidence. Burden of proof is always on the government not the defendant , except for an affirmative offense: examples below Alibi Mistake of law

Admissibility and weight of direct and circumstantial evidence

The prosecutor and the defense may introduce both direct and circumstantial evidence to prove their view of the case. In legal theory, both types of evidence can be accorded equal weight, but juries tend to place more weight on direct evidence. A case may be proved beyond a reasonable doubt by circumstantial evidence only. A. Direct Evidence Direct evidence proves a fact without inference or deduction. If evidence is believed: fact is established. No reasoning process of putting together evidence is necessary. A finder of fact only needs to determine whether to believe the witness offering direct evidence. B. Circumstantial Evidence First, prove the directly known fact: E.g., Defendant's DNA sample was taken from the person of a rape victim. The deduced fact is that he had intimate contact of a sexual nature with the victim. Circumstantial evidence is evidence from which the existence of one fact or facts may be inferred or deduced from proof of another fact or facts. In a totally circumstantial case, some courts instruct the jury to exclude every hypothesis consistent with innocence before considering a guilty verdict.

Use of evidence at the trial

The trier of fact hears witnesses, observes real evidence, makes inferences and presumptions, uses judicially noticed facts, and comes to a decision. The trier of fact is the judge and the jury The jury should listen to the jury instructions as given by the judge in order to properly apply the facts to the law. The prosecutor has the responsibility to arrange the presentation of evidence so that it is best suited to achieve its objective. The defense attorney must sequence the evidence in the manner most favorable to carrying the defense theory of the case to the jury.

Order of presenting evidence at trial

Traditionally, the order of presenting trial evidence proceeds as follows: A. Prosecution's (state's, people's commonwealth's) chief B. Defense's case-in-chief C. Prosecution's case in rebuttal D. Defense's case in rejoinder Each witness is subject to cross examination Prosecution's case-in-chief The prosecution initiates the presentation of evidence because it has the burden of proof. The prosecutor introduces each witness and questions the witness on direct examination with the defense allowed to cross-examine. Oral testimony, exhibits, photographs, tests,and experimental results will be presented at this stage of the trial. The government will rest its case when the prosecutor believes that proof beyond a reasonable doubt has been established. Defense's case-in-chief When the prosecution concludes its case, the defense may present its case-in-chief but the defense is not required to present any evidence. The defense may introduce evidence that contradicts or discredits the prosecutor's case or establishes an affirmative defense. No defendant can be required to become a witness on his or her own behalf. Defense witnesses testify on direct examination and are subject to cross-examination by the prosecutor. State's Case in Rebuttal Following the presentation of the defense, the prosecution may choose to rebut some of the evidence presented by the defense. Previous witnesses may be recalled to clarify earlier prosecution evidence and new witnesses may testify to rebut the defense. The prosecution must generally conduct direct examination of prosecution witnesses on rebuttal. Defense Case in Rejoinder The defense is permitted to meet government evidence offered during the state's rebuttal. Generally, the defense is permitted to rebut only evidence offered during the state's case in rebuttal, but clever attorneys may successfully exploit this opportunity to their advantage, especially if the prosecutor has "opened the door" to new topics. When the attorneys for both sides do not wish further inquiry, the process goes forward to closing arguments and jury instructions.

Anglican system

Trial by battle was introduced to England by William the Conqueror after 1066. Later practice involved the use of juries, but the local jurors were supposed to possess some knowledge of the case. Jurors could search out evidence themselves; quite the opposite of today's practice. In this time the jurors were expected to know something about the case and were allowed to investigate some on their own. Around 1500 A.D., the use of witnesses gained general usage with the eventual result that jurors were not expected to have any prior knowledge of the case. In using witnesses, the need for standardization of procedure and the protection of individual rights became obvious. Jurors needed guidance to prevent misleading or false testimony. To address such needs, exclusionary rules developed that regulated admission of evidence. The goal of evidentiary rules was fairness so that juries considered only important, relevant evidence. 8/28

Judicial notice of facts

Under Federal Rule 201 and similar state provisions, a court may take judicial notice of adjudicative facts and not legislative facts. Rule 201 allows notice of facts not subject to dispute that are generally known w/in court's jurisdiction or that can be readily ascertained from accurate sources. A judge must take judicial notice if asked by a party and supplied with the necessary information. Judicial notice of facts is not the same as personal judicial knowledge. A. A judge may take judicial notice of the court's jurisdiction. B. A judge may take judicial notice of radar principles, although the judge does not personally comprehend each part. C. A judge may take notice of principles of DNA, even though he or she is not a doctor.

Mesopotamian legal system- out of presently Iraq

Under King Hammurabi, the legal system evolved beyond priests to a system operated by secular or royal judges- both governmental and religious system Royal judges called witnesses or looked at instruments to determine guilt or innocence This system may be the genesis of the current use of witness testimony and real evidence(physical evidence)

Smith v. State text page 793

Wants to suppress the evidence that gave them probable cause that is crucial to the prosecution's case Problem with the tes on the side of the road- sometimes there is an end to the road or a grate that could affect the results Judge knows the edge of the road is grassy with a slight slope, so because of this the judge didn't think it was the best place to do the test- the judge took judicial notice of this fact, not a proper subject to take judicial notice/ not common knowledge Case was retried, judge should not have taken judicial notice Just because a judge knows something personally does not mean its judicial notice

Judicial notice

We use it because it saves time Judge can't take judicial notice of an element of a crime

Consideration of evidence on appeal

When a defendant is acquitted at trial,the prosecution cannot appeal the verdict in any way that will affect the defendant. If the defendant is convicted, upon his or her appeal, a new trial could be granted. A retrial will involve a second presentation of the evidence by the prosecution, minus the error that required reversal.

Judicial notice process

When judicial notice is taken by a court, the judge will inform the jury, but the opposing party will be heard if it objects to the notice. When a party requests that the court take judicial notice, if the judge agrees, the judge will advise the jury concerning what fact, law, or principle has been noticed. Judicially noticed matters cannot be disputed by contrary evidence. Limitation: In criminal cases, the jury is not bound by the matter that has been judicially noticed. A jury is not bound by what a judge decides

Introduction ch. 2

When pertinent evidence is excluded, logical justifications generally exist. Fairness provides justification for some exclusions. Evidence can be excluded when it proves to be unduly prejudicial to a defendant. Rules of evidence generally apply to both civil and criminal cases. Some rules are unique to both types of cases. Differences in the rules must be understood by criminal justice professionals.

Self-defense

When self-defense has been alleged, the burden of proof is generally held to be on the defendant. The burden of proof that the defendant must meet is a preponderance of the evidence or have a jury find that reasonable doubt exists. In a minority of jurisdictions, when the defendant introduces some evidence of self-defense, the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense rests with the prosecution.

Burden of proving affirmative defense: General

When the prosecution has presented evidence that,if believed, would meet the burden of proof, the defense has the burden of going forward with a defense. A defense to a charge may include an affirmative defense for which the burden of proof may rest with the defendant, e.g., alibi or self-defense. The defense may choose only to introduce evidence that, if believed, would create a reasonable doubt in the prosecutor's proof.

Trammel v. United States

Wife testified against her husband for immunity Her husband's argument is she shouldn't be allowed due to marital privilege

Role of witnesses

Witnesses, whether lay or expert, are responsible for presenting evidence in court. Criminal justice personnel and other lay witnesses present most criminal evidence both for the prosecution and for the defense. For a juror, the total demeanor of a witness affects credibility. Witnesses can be forced to testify even when there is reluctance, unless the witness has a legal or constitutional right to decline.

Hearsay evidence-

a statement offered in court that repeats what an out-of-court declarant said and is offered for the truth of what it says Hearsay evidence is a statement, other than the statement made by the declarant while testifying at the trial, that is offered to prove the truth of the the matter asserted The general rule holds that hearsay evidence is not admissible unless an exception to the rule exists Signed confessions made in police station Dying declaration- made by victim of crime who is about to die and describes who killed them, how, and why

Prima facie evidence

consists of sufficient evidence that, if believed, is sufficient to carry a case to the jury. Other evidence, that is equally believable, that tends to point to an opposite conclusion, will refute a showing of prima facie evidence.

Testimony-

evidence that comes to the court through witnesses speaking while under oath Testimony is limited to oral evidence offered in court or other official proceedings Testimony is one type of evidence

Material evidence-

evidence that goes to the substantial matter in dispute or is evidence that has a legitimate and effective influence on the decision in the case. Material evidence addresses the crucially important issues that affect the outcome of a case

Competent evidence-

evidence that is admissible in support of, or to negate, a fact in issue Evidence may be relevant and material but incompetent For example, in one state, police officer testimony about traffic offenses is incompetent if the officer was driving an unmarked police car. Example- evidence that is illegally seized

Relevant evidence-

federal rule 401:relevant evidence is evidence that has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence." When there is a fact that one party wishes to prove or disprove the fact would be considered relevant evidence

Real evidence

has been defined as a fact perceptible to the senses. Real evidence possesses tangible essence and physical existence Guns, knives, explosives, and other weapons are considered real evidence

Documentary evidence-

includes all types of written records, but encompasses more than mere writings. Documentary evidence includes traditional written instruments, inscriptions, and other methods of recording and storing data and information. Computer-stored information will be considered to be a "writing" Photos, movies, surveillance tapes count as writings as well

Corroborative evidence-

is supplementary evidence that tends to prove a fact a second time in a different way Repeated corroborative evidence could be called cumulative evidence, especially when the point at issue has not been contested Criminal evictions generally require some corroborative evidence when the case rests on a defendant's confession alone

Proof- i

is the effect of evidence that has been introduced Evidence is the medium of proof; proof is the effect of evidence Proof can also be described as the persuasion of the mind of the finder of fact caused by the exhibition of evidence

Cumulative evidence

proves a fact that has already been established by other evidence. Evidence from a second or third source that establishes or proves the truth of a fact an additional time

Evidence

s the means employed for the purpose of proving an unknown or disputed fact. Evidence is either judicial or extrajudicial. Evidence consists of information upon which a person can make a decision.