Evidence

Class Notes

Case Briefs

  1. McKoy v. North Carolina: 2/9/09 ; Requirement that a jury way only mitigating factors on which they unaimously agree is unconstitutional because it effectively usurps the judge's decision that some evidence was relevant. Rule 401 (relevance)
  2. Crane v. Kentucky: 2/11/09 ; Admissibility vs. weight: excluding testimony about how a confession was obtained undermines the defendant's right to confront the accuser. The judge's ruling on the admissibility of the confession can't usurp the jury's right to consider the weight given to it, and that means that supporting or refuting evidence is relevant. Rule 401 (relevance), and Rule 104(e)
  3. Holmes v. South Carolina: 2/18/09 ; One side's evidence doesn't become irrelevant just because the opposing side's case is really strong. Rule 401. And relevant evidence is only excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the factors in Rule 403.
  4. Dollar v. Long: 2/4/09, 2/23/09 ; evidence not admissible for proof of negligence can still be used for impeachment. See Rule 403: prejudice is not the problem-- unfair prejudice is the real issue. Also Rule 407: subsequent remedial measures not admissible to prove negligence.
  5. Delaware v. Van Arsdall: 2/23/09 ; Rule 403 can be used to limit cross-examination, even when the 6A right to confrontation is a concern.
  6. Old Chief v. United States: 2/23/09 ; Rule 403 and barring the admission of evidence that is unfairly prejudicial.
  7. U.S. v. Zapata: 3/9/09 ; Testimony given on direct will stand, so long as there has been an opportunity to fairly cross-examine (i.e., invocation of 5A doesn't preclude cross-examination).
  8. U.S. v. Ling: DATE ; SMRY
  9. Gertz v. Fitchburg R. Co.: 3/23/09 ; Felonies are admissible for impeachment