Question 1

What procedure is followed in court in challenging evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent?

Accepted Answer

In a court of law, when a party believes that evidence presented by the opposing side is irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent, they can challenge it through a specific procedure. Here is a general outline of the steps followed:

1. **Objection**: The first step is for the attorney to raise an objection. This is done in real-time, as soon as the evidence is presented or as soon as the question is asked of a witness. The attorney must clearly state the basis for the objection, such as "objection, relevance" or "objection, hearsay."

2. **Legal Basis**: The attorney must provide a legal basis for the objection. This means citing the specific rule of evidence or case law that supports the claim that the evidence is irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent.

3. **Argument (if necessary)**: If the judge does not immediately rule on the objection, the judge may ask the objecting attorney to elaborate on their argument. This is typically done outside the hearing of the jury (in a jury trial) so as not to prejudice the jurors.

4. **Opposing Argument**: The opposing counsel will have an opportunity to respond to the objection and argue why the evidence should be considered relevant, material, and competent.

5. **Ruling by the Judge**: After hearing both sides, the judge will make a ruling on the objection. The judge may rule that the evidence is indeed irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent and sustain the objection, which means the evidence is excluded. Alternatively, the judge may overrule the objection, allowing the evidence to be admitted.

6. **Record of Objection**: If the objection is overruled and the evidence is admitted, the objecting attorney may ask the judge to make a record of the objection and the judge's ruling. This is important for preserving the issue for a potential appeal.

7. **Continuing Objection**: In some cases, if the objection is to a line of questioning or a type of evidence that will continue to be presented, the attorney may request a "continuing objection" to avoid interrupting the proceedings with repetitive objections.

8. **Motion to Strike**: If evidence is admitted and later found to be improper, an attorney may make a motion to strike the evidence from the record. The judge will then decide whether to instruct the jury to disregard the evidence.

9. **Offer of Proof**: If an objection is sustained and evidence is excluded, the party offering the evidence may make an "offer of proof" outside the jury's presence to create a record of what the evidence would have shown, which can be important for appeals.

10. **Appeal**: If a party believes that the court made an error in admitting or excluding evidence, they may raise this issue on appeal after the trial concludes. The appellate court will review the record to determine if the trial court abused its discretion or made a legal error regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence.

It's important to note that the specific rules and procedures can vary by jurisdiction and the type of court (criminal, civil, federal, state, etc.). Attorneys must be familiar with the rules of evidence applicable in the court where the trial is taking place.

Question 2

Explain the evidence concepts of materiality and relevancy, and give some examples of each.

Accepted Answer

Materiality and relevancy are two important concepts in the legal and accounting fields that help determine the significance and importance of evidence in a case or financial statement.

Materiality refers to the significance or importance of evidence in relation to the overall case or financial statement. In legal cases, material evidence is evidence that has a significant impact on the outcome of the case. In accounting, materiality refers to the significance of a financial statement item or transaction in relation to the overall financial picture of a company. For example, if a company has a $1 million error in its financial statement, this would be considered material because it significantly impacts the overall financial position of the company.

Relevancy, on the other hand, refers to the connection or pertinence of evidence to the issues in the case or financial statement. In legal cases, relevant evidence is evidence that has a logical connection to the facts of the case and is helpful in proving or disproving a fact in question. In accounting, relevant evidence is evidence that is directly related to the financial statement item or transaction in question. For example, in a legal case involving a car accident, evidence of the defendant's speeding at the time of the accident would be relevant to the issue of liability.

Examples of material evidence in a legal case could include a signed contract, a confession, or a murder weapon. In accounting, examples of material financial statement items could include a large loan, a significant error in financial reporting, or a major lawsuit against the company.

Examples of relevant evidence in a legal case could include eyewitness testimony, surveillance footage, or expert testimony. In accounting, examples of relevant evidence could include bank statements, invoices, or emails related to a specific financial transaction.

In summary, materiality and relevancy are important concepts in evaluating the significance and importance of evidence in legal cases and financial statements. Understanding these concepts is crucial in making informed decisions and judgments based on the evidence presented.

Question 3

Explain how the concepts of logical relevancy and legal relevancy relate to the traditional concept of and materiality of evidence.

Accepted Answer

Logical relevancy and legal relevancy are both important concepts in determining the admissibility of evidence in a legal proceeding.

Logical relevancy refers to whether the evidence has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. In other words, is the evidence related to the issue at hand and does it have the potential to impact the outcome of the case? This concept is closely related to the traditional concept of materiality of evidence, which considers whether the evidence is relevant to the issues in the case and whether it has the potential to affect the outcome.

Legal relevancy, on the other hand, refers to whether the evidence is admissible under the rules of evidence. This includes considerations such as whether the evidence is hearsay, whether it is more prejudicial than probative, and whether it was obtained legally. Legal relevancy is important in determining whether evidence can be presented to the court, regardless of its logical relevancy.

In relation to the traditional concept of materiality of evidence, both logical and legal relevancy play a crucial role. Materiality of evidence considers whether the evidence is relevant to the issues in the case and whether it has the potential to affect the outcome. Logical relevancy helps to determine whether the evidence is related to the issues at hand and has the potential to impact the outcome, while legal relevancy helps to determine whether the evidence is admissible under the rules of evidence.

In summary, the concepts of logical relevancy and legal relevancy are closely related to the traditional concept of materiality of evidence, as they all play a crucial role in determining the admissibility and impact of evidence in a legal proceeding.

Question 4

What is the general rule concerning the admissibility of relevant evidence? Who makes the final decision as to whether an item of evidence is relevant and, therefore, admissible?

Accepted Answer

The answer of What is the general rule concerning the...

Question 5

While relevant evidence is presumptively admissible, many legal theories will result in the exclusion of relevant evidence for a variety of reasons, some logical and some based on public policy. What are some of the instances in which Federal Rule 403 may exclude relevant evidence from admission in court?

Accepted Answer

The answer of While relevant evidence is presumptively admissible, many...

Question 6

What is the general rule concerning the relevancy and materiality of evidence tending to establish the identity of persons involved in crimes? May "other crimes" evidence be used for identification purposes?

Accepted Answer

The answer of What is the general rule concerning the...

Question 7

Under the Neil v. Biggers test for witness identification, what are the constitutional requirements that must be met in order to allow the admissibility of evidence of a victim's or witness's pretrial identification of the defendant from photographs or a lineup?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Under the Neil v. Biggers test for...

Question 8

Will courts generally admit physical objects, forensic evidence, and other tangible evidence against a defendant? Is there a general rule concerning the admissibility of evidence of objects and scientific evidence connected to the crime?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Will courts generally admit physical objects, forensic...

Question 9

Is evidence of conduct of the accused shortly before the offense, which is either consistent with innocence or consistent with a defendant's guilt, considered relevant and admissible? If so, what are the limitations concerning the admissibility of such evidence?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Is evidence of conduct of the accused...

Question 10

Under what circumstances is evidence of conduct following the criminal act relevant? How relevant would the use of a false name, refusal to allow police to enter, or giving a false address be relevant in a criminal prosecution?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Under what circumstances is evidence of conduct...

Question 11

Why might evidence of fleeing the scene or flight after the crime be indicative of guilt? Why is flight following a crime not always relevant evidence of a consciousness of guilt?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Why might evidence of fleeing the scene...

Question 12

Under what circumstances is evidence of an affirmative defense such as insanity relevant and admissible? Voluntary intoxication?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Under what circumstances is evidence of an...

Question 13

Generally, evidence of a person's character or a trait of his or her character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the defendant acted in the predicted manner on the occasion in question. Under Federal Rule 404(a), there are several exceptions mentioned. Define these exceptions to the general rule, and explain the circumstances under which these exceptions apply.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Generally, evidence of a person's character or...

Question 14

There are circumstances when a prosecutor wants to introduce evidence of a defendant's legal prior difficulties or prior convictions because the prosecutor considers prior conduct as relevant. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit suggested following a two-step approach in determining the admissibility of evidence of other crimes. What is this two-step test? Enumerate at least four purposes for which evidence of other crimes is admissible. Discuss the rationale for admitting such evidence.

Accepted Answer

The answer of There are circumstances when a prosecutor wants...

Question 15

What factors did the Daubert v. Merrell Dow case suggest as appropriate for testing relevance in the admission of scientific evidence in federal court? Give an example of the use of experimental and scientific evidence as meeting the relevancy test.

Accepted Answer

The answer of What factors did the Daubert v. Merrell...

Question 16

The defendant in the case of Commonwealth v. Prashaw contended that the introduction of naked photographs of her in sexually provocative poses, during a case involving firearms violations, created unfair prejudice to her defense and that the photographs were not relevant in any sense to the theory of guilt proffered by the prosecution. Did the appellate court agree with the defendant, or did it believe that the provocative photographs were relevant to the proof of the prosecution's case? Should the court have decided this case in the manner in which it did? Why or why not?

Accepted Answer

The answer of The defendant in the case of Commonwealth...

Question 17

In the case of State v. Jackson, police caught appellant Jackson and his co-defendant selling bogus music compact discs from a table they had set up on the sidewalk. He had been arrested for similar conduct at a prior time. The prior arrest involving compact discs was for selling without a vendor's license and he argued that that offense should not have been mentioned in his second trial because it was unfairly prejudicial. Why did the appellate court agree that the prior offense could be admitted at the trial for selling bogus compact discs? How is it fair to try a person for one crime and let the jury know he or she has a prior criminal record?

Accepted Answer

The answer of In the case of State v. Jackson,...

Question 18

In the case of Wise v. State, the adult defendant had been convicted in Texas of various crimes involving his relationship with a sixteen-year-old girl. The defendant and the underage teenager had a sexual relationship, and she sent him naked pictures of her and allowed other pictures to be taken. Police discovered child pornography on the defendant's home computer as well as some pictures that the teenager had sent to defendant Wise. The trial court permitted the visual evidence to be admitted against the defendant over his argument that the pictures were not provably relevant to his case because there was no evidence that he had anything to do with their creation, downloading, storage, or access. Defendant had purchased the computer at a flea market with software and data pre-existing on the hard drive. Why did the Texas reviewing court reverse some of the possession of child pornography convictions on the basis of improperly admitted evidence?

Accepted Answer

The answer of In the case of Wise v. State,...

Question 19

Evidence that relates to, or bears directly upon, the point or fact in issue, and proves or has a tendency to prove the proposition alleged, is:

Accepted Answer

Relevant evidence is evidence that has a logical or causal connection to the matter being litigated or investigated. It tends to make the existence of any fact in issue more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Relevant evidence is admissible in court, whereas irrelevant evidence is not. Competent evidence refers to evidence that meets certain requirements, such as being obtained legally and being reliable. Generally excluded evidence is evidence that is not allowed in court due to legal rules or policy reasons.

Question 20

Evidence is legally material and admissible:

Accepted Answer

Evidence is admissible if it significantly affects a matter or issue in a case and meets other admissibility requirements, such as relevance, reliability, and authenticity. The evidence must have probative value, or the ability to prove or disprove a fact in question. Merely having a slight bearing on the matter in issue is not enough. Additionally, evidence must be obtained legally in accordance with the constitutional requirements. However, this alone does not make the evidence admissible – it must also satisfy the other admissibility requirements.

Quiz 5: Relevancy and Materiality