Evidence Cases

Tanner v. United States

Jurors used alcohol and drugs during jury deliberations.

FRE 606. A juror may not testify about evidence of jurors’ alcohol and drug use during a trial. (Not outside influence exception).

Warger v. Shauers

Juror was dishonest during voir dire and said she could be impartial.

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), evidence of juror deliberations is only admissible to prove an outside influence, extraneous information, or mistake. (This did not rise to the level of any of the exceptions).

Pena-Rodriquez v. Colorado

Racist juror

If a juror makes a clear statement showing reliance on racial bias or animus to convict a defendant, an exception to the no-impeachment rule allows jurors to testify about jury deliberations to determine whether racial bias deprived the defendant of an impartial jury.

United States v. James

Man with history of domestic violence is shot by daughter of victim

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, corroborating evidence of a victim’s violent history is admissible to show the defendant acted in self-defense. (Deemed relevant).

Cox v. State

Defendant killed the person who accused his friend of assaulting his daughter.

• Evidence whose relevance depends on the fulfillment of a condition of fact is admissible if the court finds that a reasonable jury could make the requisite factual determination based on the evidence before it.

  • A reasonable jury could find that Cox had knowledge of Hammer’s bond hearing. Cox spent nearly every day at Hammer’s mother house before and after the hearing, Hammer and Cox were close friends, and Hammer’s mother attended the hearing. Such evidence is sufficient to support the finding that Cox knew what had happened at Hammer’s hearing. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence of Hammer’s hearing at Cox’s trial.

State v. Bocharski

Man killed old woman. Prosecution wanted to admit gruesome photos of woman’s death.

Where a fact is uncontested, the probative value of the evidence on that fact is minimal. Evidence which is more prejudicial than probative should be excluded.

Commonwealth v. Serge

Man killed his wife and prosecution sought to introduce computer-generated expert witness testimony.

Demonstrative evidence is admissible if it (1) is properly authenticated as a fair and accurate representation of the evidence it is supposed to portray, (2) is relevant, and (3) has probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

United States v. Myers

Man robs bank in Pennsylvania and is suspected of robbing bank in Florida.

Flight evidence is admissible to show guilt if reasonable evidence supports each of four inferences that, together, make it possible to infer that the conduct was an implied admission of guilt. These inferences are that: (1) the defendant’s conduct was an attempt to flee, (2) the flight was because of a guilty conscience, (3) the defendant’s guilty conscience was guilt over the charged crime, and (4) the defendant’s guilty conscience over the charged crime was from guilt about committing the offense. (Must meet ALL 4 inferences).

Old Chief v. United States

Defendant had prior criminal record and sought to stipulate the evidence so prosecution could not proffer it later.

Although the prosecution is generally able to prove its case the way it sees fit, this is not the case if proffered evidence has the tendency to taint the juror’s minds so that they reach a verdict on an improper basis.

Tuer v. McDonald

Doctor stopped prescribing a judge before surgery. Someone died. After someone died they allowed the judge to continue to be prescribed before surgery.

Although proving feasibility or impeachment are exceptions to the general rule that evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible, a professional judgment call in not instituting the measure sooner does not trigger those exceptions.