1. CHAPTER 2: RELEVANCE
Prof. JANICKE
2015
Chap Relevance (2015)

2. DIRECT vs. CIRCUMSTANTIAL: DOES IT MATTER ??
EYEWITNESS TO A FACT IN ISSUE
CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVERYTHING ELSE
Chap Relevance (2015)

3. WHICH IS MORE PERSUASIVE?
TRADITIONALLY: EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY WAS THOUGHT MORE RELIABLE
MODERN VIEW: UNRELIABLE FOR STRANGERS:
DNA OR FINGERPRINTS MORE RELIABLE
Chap Relevance (2015)

4. DIRECT TESTIMONY IS FAIRLY RELIABLE FOR PERSONS THE WITNESS KNOWS WELL, PROVIDED
NO ANIMUS TO FALSIFY
NO FRAUD DRIVING THE TESTIMONY
Chap Relevance (2015)

5. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CAN BE POWERFUL
D’s UNEXPLAINED FINGERPRINTS FOUND
D’S KNIFE FOUND
D EARLIER THREATENED TO KILL VICTIM
LOOT FOUND UNDER D’S BED
D HAS FIVE PRIOR CONVICTIONS WITH SAME M.O.
Chap Relevance (2015)

6. PROBLEMS/CASES OLD CHIEF (PART 1) PROB. 2A PROB. 2B PROB. 2C PROB. 2D
Chap Relevance (2015)

7. THE CONCEPT OF PROBATIVE VALUE
MEASURING THE TENDENCY TO CONVINCE THE TRIER ON A RELEVANT FACT
>>>
Chap Relevance (2015)

8. JUDGES HAVE TO “WEIGH” PROBATIVE VALUE
IN RULING ON RELEVANCE vs. THE COUNTERWEIGHTS (R.403: UNFAIR PREJUDICE; WASTE OF TIME; CONFUSION OF THE JURY)
AN APPLES-TO-ORANGES COMPARISON, BUT DONE EVERY DAY
Chap Relevance (2015)

9. ADMISSIBILITY vs. SUFFICIENCY
Chap Relevance (2015)

10. ADMISSIBILITY MEANS A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE CAN BE RECEIVED
STANDING ALONE, THAT PIECE MAY NOT BE ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY ANY CONCLUSION ON THE FACT INVOLVED
Chap Relevance (2015)

11. SUFFICIENCY
ENOUGH TOTAL EVIDENCE THAT REASONABLE JURORS COULD FIND THAT THE PROOF STANDARD (PREPONDERANCE, REASONABLE DOUBT, CLEAR AND CONVINCING, ETC.) HAS BEEN MET
Chap Relevance (2015)

12. PROBLEMS/CASES: STATE v. CHAPPLE
SHOWS THE CAREFUL CHECKING OF PROBATIVE VALUE vs. RISK OF PREJUDICE
UNFORTUNATE ROLE OF JURORS:
SOMETHING AWFUL HAS HAPPENED
THEY HAVE ONLY ONE WAY TO “DO SOMETHING” ABOUT IT
Chap Relevance (2015)

13. PROBLEMS/CASES 2E – BATTERED WIFE 2F – EXPLODING GAS TANK
2G – MY INSURANCE
Chap Relevance (2015)

14. THE HALF-OPEN DOOR RULES
SEVERAL OF THEM IN EVIDENCE LAW
ONE IS ABOUT DOCUMENTS:
INTRO OF PORTION BY ONE PARTY IS OK
BUT IS A WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS FOR ANY RELATED PARTS OFFERED BY ADVERSE PARTY [R106]
R106: COURT CAN REQUIRE ADMISSION OF THE OTHER PARTS “AT THAT TIME” – i.e., NOW
Chap Relevance (2015)

15. RULE EXTENDS
WHEN AN ENTIRE DOCUMENT IS OFFERED AND ADMITTED, R. 106 EXTENDS TO OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT SHOULD IN FAIRNESS BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER WITH IT
CAN COMPEL ADMISSION AT THE TIME
Chap Relevance (2015)

16. PROBLEMS/CASES 2H – POWER ROLLBACK 2I – RAID ON CEDAR WOODS
Chap Relevance (2015)

17. PROBABILISTIC EVIDENCE
HELPFUL, BUT CAN BE MISUSED
OFTEN COUNTERINTUITIVE
COMMON BIRTHDAYS (MONTH, DAY) IN THIS ROOM?
Chap Relevance (2015)