Materiality, Relevance, and Admissibility of Evidence - Revision history

IBJadmin: /* Relevance */

2012-06-29T13:04:18Z

Relevance

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:04, 29 June 2012
Line 17:		Line 17:

	==Relevance==		==Relevance==
	Evidence is relevant if it indicates a relationship between facts that increases the probability of the existence of the other. A trier of fact (judge or jury) determines the '''sufficiency'''or '''weight'''of the given evidence. In other words, the trier of law decides whether the evidence is relevant enough to be admitted, but the trier of fact decides how much ot counts (i.e. how much weight or probative value) in determining the verdict.		Evidence is relevant if it indicates a relationship between facts that increases the probability of the existence of the other. A trier of fact (judge or jury) determines the '''sufficiency''' or '''weight''' of the given evidence. In other words, the trier of law decides whether the evidence is relevant enough to be admitted, but the trier of fact decides how much ot counts (i.e. how much weight or probative value) in determining the verdict.

	In order for evidence to meet the relevance threshold, there must be merely some probative value. It is for the trier of fact to decide whether there is sufficient probative value to convict.		In order for evidence to meet the relevance threshold, there must be merely some probative value. It is for the trier of fact to decide whether there is sufficient probative value to convict.

	For example, in criminal cases, the only issue is guilt/innocence. As a result, photos of the murder victim are generally NOT relevant because their prejudicial value outweighs the probative value (photos of the murder do not speak to the guilt or innocence of the accused).

	Note: Even marginally probative evidence is admissible.		Note: Even marginally probative evidence is admissible.

IBJadmin: /* Relevance */

2012-06-29T13:02:06Z

Relevance

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:02, 29 June 2012
Line 17:		Line 17:

	==Relevance==		==Relevance==
	Evidence is relevant if it indicates a relationship between facts that increases the probability of the existence of the other. A trier of fact (judge or jury) determines the sufficiency or weight of the given evidence. In order for evidence to meet the relevance threshold, there must be merely some probative value.		Evidence is relevant if it indicates a relationship between facts that increases the probability of the existence of the other. A trier of fact (judge or jury) determines the '''sufficiency'''or '''weight'''of the given evidence. In other words, the trier of law decides whether the evidence is relevant enough to be admitted, but the trier of fact decides how much ot counts (i.e. how much weight or probative value) in determining the verdict.

			In order for evidence to meet the relevance threshold, there must be merely some probative value. It is for the trier of fact to decide whether there is sufficient probative value to convict.

			For example, in criminal cases, the only issue is guilt/innocence. As a result, photos of the murder victim are generally NOT relevant because their prejudicial value outweighs the probative value (photos of the murder do not speak to the guilt or innocence of the accused).

			Note: Even marginally probative evidence is admissible.

	==Prejudicial Value==		==Prejudicial Value==

IBJadmin: /* Materiality */

2012-06-29T12:57:12Z

Materiality

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:57, 29 June 2012
Line 13:		Line 13:

	Some evidence may be admissible even if it does not bear directly on an issue of fact as long as it has a relationship to the weight or credibility of evidence (this is the collateral facts rule). Thus, when a witness testifies their credibility, perception, memory and narration or communication are all material even though they are not directly related to an issue of fact. The issue of credibility arises especially with oral evidence, because of perception, memory, narration or communication.		Some evidence may be admissible even if it does not bear directly on an issue of fact as long as it has a relationship to the weight or credibility of evidence (this is the collateral facts rule). Thus, when a witness testifies their credibility, perception, memory and narration or communication are all material even though they are not directly related to an issue of fact. The issue of credibility arises especially with oral evidence, because of perception, memory, narration or communication.

			Collateral/Subordinate/Secondary facts are factual disputes that regard competence or credibility of a witness or probative value of other evidence.

	==Relevance==		==Relevance==

IBJadmin: /* Materiality */

2012-06-29T12:41:36Z

Materiality

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:41, 29 June 2012
Line 12:		Line 12:
	Evidence is material if it is offered to prove or disprove a specific fact in issue. Thus, evidence is material if it relates to one of the particular elements necessary for proving or disproving a case. If evidence is not material, it the defense or prosecution may object to the use of the evidence on grounds that it would mislead the trier of fact, result in inefficient trials, and prove a distraction to the substantive issues. The exclusion of immaterial evidence is sometimes called the collateral facts rule.		Evidence is material if it is offered to prove or disprove a specific fact in issue. Thus, evidence is material if it relates to one of the particular elements necessary for proving or disproving a case. If evidence is not material, it the defense or prosecution may object to the use of the evidence on grounds that it would mislead the trier of fact, result in inefficient trials, and prove a distraction to the substantive issues. The exclusion of immaterial evidence is sometimes called the collateral facts rule.

	Some evidence may be admissible even if it does not bear directly on an issue of fact as long as it has a relationship to the weight or credibility of evidence. Thus, when a witness testifies their credibility, perception, memory and narration or communication are all material even though they are not directly related to an issue of fact.		Some evidence may be admissible even if it does not bear directly on an issue of fact as long as it has a relationship to the weight or credibility of evidence (this is the collateral facts rule). Thus, when a witness testifies their credibility, perception, memory and narration or communication are all material even though they are not directly related to an issue of fact. The issue of credibility arises especially with oral evidence, because of perception, memory, narration or communication.

	==Relevance==		==Relevance==

IBJadmin at 12:32, 29 June 2012

2012-06-29T12:32:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:32, 29 June 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	In determining the admissibility of evidence, the judge should determine the relevance and materiality of the information.Evidence must be both relevant and material to be admitted. In the United States, a judge presiding over a jury trial will determine the relevance and the jury will determine the materiality. In a bench trial, the judge presides as both trier of law and trier of fact. Therefore, he will determine both the relevance and the materiality of the evidence presented.		In determining the admissibility of evidence, the judge should determine the relevance and materiality of the information.Evidence must be both relevant and material to be admitted. In the United States, a judge presiding over a jury trial will determine the relevance and the jury will determine the materiality. In a bench trial, the judge presides as both trier of law and trier of fact. Therefore, he will determine both the relevance and the materiality of the evidence presented.

			'''Basic Rule :''' Evidence should be '''excluded''' if the '''prejudicial value outweighs the probative value'''.

			This ensures that the evidence does not unduly sway the trier or fact against the accused more than the totality of evidence should sugggest.

			The trier of fact should be given as fair a picture of the situation as possible, so if the evidence is unduly prejudicial, the fairness of the trial would be negated.

			We must consider materiality and relevance before we weigh the prejudicial value against the probative value. If not material and relevant, then evidence is not admitted anyway.

	==Materiality==		==Materiality==

Ibjadmin: /* Foundation for admissibility of physical evidence or expert opinions */

2010-07-03T11:14:12Z

Foundation for admissibility of physical evidence or expert opinions

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:14, 3 July 2010
Line 25:		Line 25:
	In practice conditional relevance tends to apply in the following cases:		In practice conditional relevance tends to apply in the following cases:
	===Foundation for admissibility of physical evidence or expert opinions===		===Foundation for admissibility of physical evidence or expert opinions===
	*'''Example:'''Prosecution calls expert witness to the stand to prove bullet found at the crime scene was fired from the weapon discovered in the defendant's home. The evidence is conditionally relevant based on whether the expert opinion is based on reliable methods.		*'''Example:''' Prosecution calls expert witness to the stand to prove bullet found at the crime scene was fired from the weapon discovered in the defendant's home. The evidence is conditionally relevant based on whether the expert opinion is based on reliable methods.

	===Proving personal knowledge for witnesses===		===Proving personal knowledge for witnesses===
	*'''Example:''' Prosecution calls witness to say defendant fired a weapon into a crowded bus. The evidence is only relevant if the witness has first hand knowledge		*'''Example:''' Prosecution calls witness to say defendant fired a weapon into a crowded bus. The evidence is only relevant if the witness has first hand knowledge

Ibjadmin: /* Conditional Relevance */

2010-07-03T11:13:48Z

Conditional Relevance

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:13, 3 July 2010
Line 21:		Line 21:
	<blockquote>When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court shall admit it upon, or subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition.</blockquote>		<blockquote>When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court shall admit it upon, or subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition.</blockquote>

	In order to determine conditional relevance, the judge must first make a determination their is evidence "sufficient to prove by preponderance."<ref>Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988)<ref> ~~If believed could a reasonable jury conclude?~~		In order to determine conditional relevance, the judge must first make a determination their is evidence "sufficient to prove by preponderance."<ref>Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988)</ref>

	In practice conditional relevance tends to apply in the following cases:		In practice conditional relevance tends to apply in the following cases:

Ibjadmin: /* Conditional Relevance */

2010-07-03T10:31:46Z

Conditional Relevance

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:31, 3 July 2010
Line 20:		Line 20:

	<blockquote>When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court shall admit it upon, or subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition.</blockquote>		<blockquote>When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court shall admit it upon, or subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition.</blockquote>

			In order to determine conditional relevance, the judge must first make a determination their is evidence "sufficient to prove by preponderance."<ref>Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988)<ref> If believed could a reasonable jury conclude?

	In practice conditional relevance tends to apply in the following cases:		In practice conditional relevance tends to apply in the following cases:

Ibjadmin: /* Prejudicial Value */

2010-07-03T10:26:42Z

Prejudicial Value

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:26, 3 July 2010
Line 11:		Line 11:
	==Prejudicial Value==		==Prejudicial Value==

	Although relevant and material, evidence MAY be ~~excluded~~ if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.<ref>Federal Rules of Evidence 104(b)</ref>		Although relevant and material, evidence MAY be inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.<ref>Federal Rules of Evidence 104(b)</ref>

	'''Example:''' Photos of the murder victim are generally NOT relevant in the United States to prove death because their prejudicial value outweighs the probative value.<ref> Federal Rules of Evidence 403</ref> However, photos may be relevant to any other issue, such as method of killing, defendant's claim of self-defense, etc.		'''Example:''' Photos of the murder victim are generally NOT relevant in the United States to prove death because their prejudicial value outweighs the probative value.<ref> Federal Rules of Evidence 403</ref> However, photos may be relevant to any other issue, such as method of killing, defendant's claim of self-defense, etc.

Ibjadmin: /* Prejudicial Value */

2010-07-03T10:21:54Z

Prejudicial Value

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:21, 3 July 2010
Line 13:		Line 13:
	Although relevant and material, evidence MAY be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.<ref>Federal Rules of Evidence 104(b)</ref>		Although relevant and material, evidence MAY be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.<ref>Federal Rules of Evidence 104(b)</ref>

	'''Example:''' Photos of the murder victim are generally NOT relevant in the United States to prove death because their prejudicial value outweighs the probative value.<ref> ~~See,~~ Federal Rules of Evidence 403</ref> However, photos may be relevant to any other issue, such as method of killing, defendant's claim of self-defense, etc.		'''Example:''' Photos of the murder victim are generally NOT relevant in the United States to prove death because their prejudicial value outweighs the probative value.<ref> Federal Rules of Evidence 403</ref> However, photos may be relevant to any other issue, such as method of killing, defendant's claim of self-defense, etc.

	==Conditional Relevance==		==Conditional Relevance==