Deck 5: Relevancy and Materiality

Question 1

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

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

Question 12

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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:

A) irrelevant evidence.
B) relevant evidence.
C) competent evidence.
D) generally excluded.

Question 20

Evidence is legally material and admissible:

A) if it relates to a fact in issue.
B) when it has been obtained in conformity with the constitutional requirements.
C) if it significantly affects a matter or issue in a case and satisfies other admissibility requirements.
D) even though it has only a slight bearing on the matter in issue.

Question 21

Photographic evidence of a gruesome crime scene may be:

A) admitted if it is probative of a fact in issue and does not have undue prejudicial effect.
B) admitted into evidence when it represents the reality of the crime scene, because the facts that a gruesome photograph depicts have been created by the defendant's acts and he or she has no complaint about prejudicial value.
C) always excluded because there is the chance that the admission might make the jury return an incorrect verdict.
D) always excluded because photographs clearly inflame a jury, creating unfair prejudice to the defendant's case.

Question 22

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?

A) It concerns a motive for the crime.
B) The probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
C) Confusion of the issues is likely to result.
D) There is danger that the jury will be misled.

Question 23

Where an objection to the admission of evidence has been made at a trial, the determination of logical relevancy, legal relevancy, and admissibility is the function of the:

A) witness.
B) trial judge.
C) jury considering the case.
D) prosecutor and defense attorney.

Question 24

In some situations, logically relevant evidence can be excluded. In a rape prosecution,

A) the defendant's prior criminal convictions cannot be admitted due to unfair prejudice in all cases.
B) the prosecution may not bring a defendant's bad reputation into court. [Assume that the defendant has not testified.]
C) the alleged victim's past sexual history with other people can be excluded from evidence.
D) the prosecutor could have old girlfriends/boyfriends of the defendant testify concerning bad deeds that the defendant has committed in the past.

Question 25

Generally, physical or photographic evidence that tends to establish the identity of persons involved in criminal cases are:

A) not admissible.
B) considered irrelevant and immaterial.
C) not admissible if photographs have been used in the identification process.
D) admissible as being relevant and material.

Question 26

An alleged victim has made an identification of a defendant at a pretrial lineup and is prepared to testify at trial that she recognized the defendant during the lineup. During the lineup, a police officer told her that the police thought it was the man later identified by the woman. She was not sure of her identification until the officer told her which man in the lineup was the guilty party. At trial, her testimony identifying the defendant should be:

A) excluded because its prejudicial value outweighs the probative value of the victim's identification of the defendant.
B) included because the victim's identification of the defendant at the pretrial lineup would not have happened if the defendant had not committed the crime.
C) admitted against the defendant because such evidence is challenged based on irrelevancy or immateriality rather than on constitutional grounds.
D) such evidence is admissible at the trial if the identification was made at the lineup regardless of the circumstances.

Question 27

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

A) such evidence is not admissible.
B) evidence of circumstances preceding the crime may be relevant, but the prejudicial value of the evidence outweighs any probative value since even defendants have rights to privacy.
C) the evidence is generally admissible if inconsistent with the accused's innocence and is probative of guilt.
D) it is not admissible when offered by the prosecution, but is admissible when offered by the defense.

Question 28

Assume that a defendant had told several persons that he was going to kill Wanda and the witnesses observed him sharpening a hunting knife that he said was going to be used to kill Wanda. Assume that Wanda's body was discovered near the defendant's home with stab wounds. The people who heard the defendant's threats and saw him sharpening the knife could:

A) not testify concerning the defendant's earlier statements because that would be constitutionally suspect because he has a right not to incriminate himself.
B) not testify against the defendant because the prejudicial value of the evidence outweighs any probative value because no one can know what the defendant was really thinking.
C) testify against the defendant because circumstances preceding a criminal act are usually considered relevant and admissible to demonstrate what a defendant did or said.
D) not be permitted to testify because this kind of evidence is not relevant when offered by the prosecution.

Question 29

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:

A) a correct instruction, as evidence of conduct subsequent to the act is generally admissible if it demonstrates a consciousness of guilt.
B) an incorrect instruction on the part of the judge, because evidence of conduct subsequent to the act is not admissible in a criminal trial because of unfair prejudice.
C) incorrect since anyone might finish one activity and move to another location without having any consciousness of guilt.
D) incorrect, because such evidence is irrelevant and immaterial.

Question 30

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

A) not relevant and therefore is inadmissible.
B) admissible regardless of how far removed it is in time from the offense.
C) usually not admissible, because it is not relevant to the question of mental condition at the time of the offense.
D) usually admissible if not unreasonably far removed in time.

Question 31

Assume that a defendant had voluntarily consumed a large quantity of alcohol to the point of extreme intoxication and was alleged to have committed a criminal act. Evidence concerning voluntary intoxication of the accused at the time of the crime:

A) is never admissible because a defendant may not rely on intoxication to prove his lack of guilt.
B) is admissible because voluntary intoxication is an excuse for the commission of a crime.
C) is not admissible because all states have statutes prohibiting the use of such evidence.
D) may be admissible if the purpose is to demonstrate that a particular state of mind required for guilt of the charged crime could not have existed due to the level of intoxication.

Question 32

The general rule regarding character evidence is that:

A) character evidence is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion a person acted in a certain way.
B) character evidence is always admissible since proof of a defendant's character always has probative value and therefore is admissible.
C) evidence of character of the accused is generally admissible in a criminal case but not evidence of the character of the victim.
D) character evidence is generally not admissible to prove good conduct or bad conduct since humans act one way one time and a different way the next.

Question 33

In a criminal prosecution, the prosecutor has evidence that the defendant has committed many other crimes other than the one for which he is presently on trial. Under the rules of evidence regulating the use of character evidence, the general rule is that evidence of other prior crimes or misconduct by the defendant:

A) may not be admitted in a criminal case because it has no bearing on the crime that the government has alleged in the current criminal case.
B) may be admissible but only to prove the existence of a common scheme or plan, motive, intent, identity, or lack of mistake of the defendant.
C) is always admissible to show that the accused had a criminal propensity because humans generally act in predictable patterns.
D) is not admitted at the criminal trial if there is a possibility that it will help the case of the prosecution.

Question 34

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:

A) is admissible, subject to the discretion of the trial court.
B) should not be admitted in criminal cases because it has no relevancy to the issues.
C) cannot be excluded for other reasons if it meets the relevancy test.
D) is not admissible if the testimony concerns the testing of firearms to show patterns of powder and shot made upon an object at a certain distance.

Question 35

The prosecution in Commonwealth v. Prashaw had been permitted to introduce a couple of pictures of the defendant in which she was shown naked posed in sexually provocative positions holding objects that might have been firearms. The prosecution's charge involved illegal possession or storage of firearms and did not involve any sexual criminal activity. On appeal, the reviewing court determined that:

A) showing evidence of prior immoral misconduct was proper if it did not amount to an uncharged crime.
B) the pictures were properly admitted as providing background information that helped the jury understand just what kind of a person the defendant really was.
C) the naked pictures of the defendant should have been excluded from introduction by the prosecution because the unfair prejudice to the defendant and to her case concerning the pictures outweighed the probative value because the jury might just convict her because she was a lewd or immoral person.
D) the pictures were properly introduced because a rational jury could conclude that a person who would allow such naked pictures to be taken of her would probably also become involved in a crime involving firearms.

Question 36

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:

A) that whether the alleged victim smoked crack cocaine before or after the alleged sexual activity would have no relevance to the issue of consent for sexual contact and the conviction should stand.
B) that the alleged victim's drug use in days prior to and days after the alleged incident was logically and legally relevant to the defendant's contention that she consented to sexual activity in order to obtain crack cocaine from the defendant. Because of this error, the verdict had to be reversed.
C) that the use of drugs by an alleged victim would have had no effect on her judgment concerning whether to give consent or withhold consent for sexual activities, and was therefore irrelevant.
D) that the defendant's desire to introduce evidence of drug activity on behalf of the victim was not legally relevant because such evidence would be introduced only to spare the victim's reputation, not to call into question her truthfulness, and thus the case was properly decided.

Question 37

In Wise v. State, the trial court allowed the admission of several pictures of child pornography that police discovered on the hard drive of his computer over the defendant's objections that, in substance, the pictures were not relevant. The forensic investigator testified that she could not tell when the pictures were added to the computer's hard drive or when, if ever, they had been viewed or accessed and that the pictures were in the unallocated part of the hard drive. The defendant purchased the computer at a flea market in a secondhand situation. With respect to the counts of child pornography that were related to the pictures on the free space of the hard drive, the appellate court:

A) upheld the convictions because sufficient relevancy existed because the pictures were on the defendant's home computer and were relevant to show that he knowingly possessed child pornography.
B) upheld the convictions because sufficient relevancy existed based on the fact that the pornographic images were on his computer and he is charged with having knowledge of their presence.
C) reversed his convictions on those counts because there was no proof that the pictures were in any way related to the defendant; they were not relevant evidence and should have been excluded.
D) reversed his convictions related to the pictures on the unallocated section of the hard drive because the proof of their presence made it no more likely that he had taken the pictures himself.