Exam 5: Relevancy and Materiality

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:

According to the Federal Rules, evidence, although relevant, may be excluded from evidence for one or more of several reasons. Which one of the following does not apply?

The general rule regarding character evidence is that:

As a general rule, evidence relating to out-of-court experiments and scientific evidence that has a direct bearing on the issues in the case:

Evidence is legally material and admissible:

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?

In State v. Jackson, in a sexual assault case, the defendant's position was that he and the alleged victim exchanged crack cocaine for sexual favors instead of him being a sexual aggressor. The trial judge refused to allow the defendant to impeach statements by the victim that she had not used crack cocaine before or after the night in question because drug use was not relevant to the issue of consent. There was proof that the victim had indeed used crack cocaine on numerous occasions including the night in question. The defendant contended that the victim's drug use on prior occasions and on the night in question was relevant because it went to the issue of whether the victim traded sexual favors for crack cocaine. On appeal, the reviewing court determined:

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

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

Evidence offered by the defense as to the accused's mental condition before or after the offense is:

When considering evidence of conduct of the accused shortly before the offense, the courts have held that:

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

Instructions by the court that the jury "may-but need not-consider flight following the crime as one circumstance tending to show feelings of guilt," is:

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?

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.

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