Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

blood tests showed that nicholas was a type a non

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: about 60% of the population.) Blood tests showed that Nicholas was a type A non-secretor, so he was not ruled out by the phosphate test. Does the medical evidence that Nicholas is one out of 60% of people who could have been the rapist have any probative value? Issue: Holding: Yes. "The results of the acid phosphate test tended to some degree to make it more probable that Nicholas was guilty of the rape and burglary." [FRE 401] Nicholas nowhere alleges prejudice which would merit exclusion of this evidence pursuant to FRE 403. The probative value of the evidence or the lack thereof could be argued to the jury. The evidence was properly admitted." Notes: What's the problem in Nicholas? o Secretor evidence just makes it more likely that he could have been the rapist but doesn't connect him to the crime!! Think of it this way: Nicholas was in the town at the time of the rape Much more probative than the fact that was one out of 60% of people who could have raped her....and even so we wouldn't attach much weight to the fact that he was in the town because all that means is that he's one of like 200,0...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online