This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: EVIDENCE Limited Admissibility: Rule 105 “When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request , shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.” The judge is required, under this rule, to give a limited instruction . This instruction will be given to the jury and will tell them that it is only admissible for a certain purpose, and not for another purpose. The FRE does NOT state exactly at what time this limited instruction should be given The courts interpreted it as that the courts have a choice as to when they want to give it: 1. They could give it at the time the evidence is introduced (makes the most sense) OR 2. They could delay the instruction until it is time the judge lectures the jury on the instructions of the law. If the opposing counsel REQUESTS the limiting instruction, then the judge must give this instruction to the jury. If counsel does not request this instruction, the judge still may give the limiting instruction if he chooses to, but he is not required to do so. The Supreme Court held that Juries are presumed to follow the judge’s instructions I. RELEVANCE Rule 401 – Definition of “relevant evidence” o “Relevant Evidence ” means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. o There must be a logical relationship o Doesn’t have to be a disputed fact of consequence. o What is meant by “fact of consequence?” – There are 3 types: If you look to the substantive law , it will tell you what most of the facts of consequence are. They mainly come from substantive law. Witness Testimony : Any time a witness gets on the stand and testifies, his credibility automatically becomes an issue in the case. This is a fact of consequence and maybe shown that his story is not worth believing. Background evidence may be fact of consequence. Controversies between parties that arise during trial arise in a context. It makes sense to allow the parties to develop the case and introduce evidence so that the jurors can truly understand the controversy between the parties. This is relevant because it is background information. [This could be easily abused by the attorneys or the trial judge]. o The statement “any tendency to make the existence of any fact” is a fairly lenient statement. It is understood that as long as it may help in some small way to the fact of consequence, then the trial judge will allow the evidence to be admissible....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/17/2008 for the course LAW ? taught by Professor Harmon during the Spring '08 term at Touro NY.
- Spring '08
- The Hours