Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

O express purpose for offering this evidence was to

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: that he, Kotsimpulous, lost his job. o Express purpose for offering this evidence was to suggest the possibility that the pork loins had been planted in the defendant's car, thus warranting reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Presiding justice excluded the testimony on two alternative grounds: o It was not relevant [402] o Danger of confusing the jury outweighed the probative value of the evidence [403] Issue: Should the evidence of the threats to Kotsimpulous been admitted? Holding: No! The evidence was not probative of the proposition that the pork loins had been planted in the defendant's car. [402] o Also, even if it was probative, court found no abuse of discretion in the conclusion that the probative value of the threat was too slight to warrant the risk of confusing the jury. [403] Notes: Wellborn does not agree with the 403 holding: A jury would have to be moronic to be confused by this evidence. Why would a jury be confused about the contention that Carver had expressly warned Kotsimpulous that he was going to...
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 at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online