Rules of Evidence CH.4

Impermissible Inference

An inference a fact finder may not draw; an example is inferring guilt because the defendant does not testify.

Credibility

Believability

Holland vs. U.S.

Circumstantial evidence is no different from testimonial evidence.

Rape shield laws are intended to end the abuses by limiting the harassing and embarrassing inquiries of defense counsel into irrelevant prior sexual conduct of sexual assault complaints.

Commonwealth v. Nieves

Inferences

Conclusions that may be drawn from facts.

Signature Crimes

Crimes that are so similar that they bear the mark of a common pattern.

Circumstantial Evidence

Evidence from which proof of the fact in question may be inferred. Indirectly proves or disproves a fact at issue.

Direct evidence

Evidence that proves or disproves a fact in question with no need for inferences. Directly proves a fact.

Victor v. Nebraska (1994)

Gives the wording of a satisfactory jury instruction on the meaning of reasonable doubt.

This court case states: that the fifth Amendment prohibits a trial judge, a prosecutor, or a witness from commenting upon a defendant's failure to testifying a criminal trial.

Griffin v. California

United States v. Williams (2008)

Help Protect Act constitutional

Common Wealth vs. Lee

Inference or intent- probable consequences. These inferences must flow rationally from the evidence presented in court.

Permissible Inference

Inferences made from proof of facts that a fact finder may, but need not, draw.

When eye witness evidence is available, the three questions used in investigating crime?

Means, Opportunity, Motive

Modus operandi means?

Method of operating, is commonly used as an investigative tool to link crimes to suspects.

In some circumstances, the defendant may introduce evidence of past violent acts by the victim.

People v. Harris

In re Winship, (1970)

Requires beyond a reasonable doubt standard in criminal prosecutions.

State v. Barker (2010)

States corpus delicti rule and requirement of independent circumstantial evidence in addition to confessions in murder prosecutions.

United States v. Roche (1990)

States that Fifth Amendment prohibits trial court or prosecutor from commenting on silence of the defendant or the defendant's failure to testify.

Sandstrom v. Montana (1979)

States that mandatory or irrebuttable presumptions are unconstitutional in criminal prosecutions.

Thompson v. United States (1988)

States why evidence of prior bad acts is inadmissible if only offered to prove character or propensity of the defendant.

Burden of Persuasion

That part of the burden of proof that requires a party to persuade the jury that a fact exist.

Proof

The Result of evidence; evidence is the means of obtaining proof.

Probable Cause

The belief of guilt based on reasonable grounds made with particularized evidence of the guilt of the person to be searched and seized.

Corpus Delicti

The body of the crime; The requirement that the government must prove that the crime charged has been committed.

Sufficiency-of-evidence requirement

The demand for a reasonable substantial foundation of evidence to support a verdict or finding.

Direct and Circumstantial Evidence and proof

The means of establishing and proving the truth or untruth of any fact that is alleged is what is known as evidence

Evidence

The means of establishing the truth or untruth of any fact that is alleged

Burden of production

The part of the burden of proof that requires a party to produce sufficient evidence to establish the fact at issue.

Reasonable Doubt

The standard of evidence that fact finders (juries or judges) must use in criminal cases to find a defendant guilty of the crime charged.

Inre Winship 397 U.S. 358 (1970)

The supreme court held that due process clause requires the prosecution to prove each element of a crime.

Federal rules of evidence 413, 414, 415

These rules make admissible in criminal cases evidence of prior sexual assault. and child molestation by a defendant charged with those crimes.

A defendant charge with a crime must answer for only that crime at his trial.

True

Although inferences "need only be reasonable and possible" as the court in the above case observed, this means only that the jury may use such a permissible inference to reach a conclusion. The Prosecution retains the duty to persuade the jury to make the inference.

True

Burden of proof for a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt more than preponderance of evidence.

True

Conviction of a crime can require proof of motive. An Example is 18 USCA S 248 This federal statute makes it a crime to intentionally injure or intimidate a person working at or using a reproductive health clinic.

True

Courts and legal scholars have not reached consensus on what constitutes reasonable doubt.

True

Courts disagree on the relevance and admissibility of cessation evidence.

True

Defendants can use circumstantial evidence

True

Finger prints and shoe prints are circumstantial evidence and inferences can be drawn from their presence at a crime scene.

True

If circumstantial evidence shows both motive and opportunity, a case can go to the jury.

True

In order to convict a defendant with the crime charged every essential element of the crime must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

True

In rape cases that go to trial, rape kits can be a valuable source of circumstantial evidence.

True

Modus operandi evidence, such as evidence of other crimes with similar elements permits the jury to draw inferences of guilt where the other crimes can be tied to the defendant.

True

Most courts hold that proof only of motive is insufficient to permit submission of the case to the jury.

True

Most courts hold that proof only of motive, or only of opportunity, is insufficient to permit submission of the case to the jury.

True

Rule 413 or 414 may be considered for its bearings on any matter to which is relevant.

True

The Federal Violence Against Women Act mandates that all states make forensic medical examinations available to victims free of charge.

True

The Jury may use a permissible inference to reach a conclusion.

True

The prosecution retains the duty to persuade the jury to make the inference.

True

Under Federal Rule 404 (B) of the federal rules of evidence and in most state evidence rules, the prosecution may use evidence of past crimes to prove modus operandi only if the other crimes share peculiar or distinctive features with the crime or crimes charged.

True

When only circumstantial evidence is used many states do not follow a general rule like the rule stated in the Holland decision.

True

How many witnesses for treason offenses?

Two

Impeach

Use of Evidence to challenge the credibility of a witness.

When eye witness evidence is not available, it is has often been stated that investigators and officers should ask, as guidelines in investigating crimes, these questions.

Who had the means of committing the crime Who had the opportunity to commit the crime Who had the motive to commit the crime