Evidence Cases

Evidence - Jolly (Fall 26)

FRE 606(b) — Juror Testimony

• Rule: Jurors generally cannot testify about deliberations to attack a verdict.
• Exceptions: Extraneous information, outside influence, or verdict-form mistake.
• Key Exception: Peña-Rodriguez allowed inquiry for serious racial bias via 6th Amendment

Tanner v. United States (1987)

• Issue: Can jurors testify about juror intoxication?
• Rule: 606(b) bars testimony about internal misconduct.
• Outcome: No—intoxication is not an outside influence.
• Key Impact: Strong internal/external distinction under 606(b).

Warger v. Shauers (2014)

• Issue: Can juror testimony prove voir dire dishonesty?
• Rule: 606(b) bars deliberation testimony used to attack a verdict.
• Outcome: No—juror affidavit was inadmissible.
• Key Impact: 606(b) applies even to voir dire dishonesty.

Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado (2017)

• Issue: Does 606(b) yield to serious racial bias?
• Rule: 6th Amendment overrides 606(b) for overt racial bias affecting verdict.
• Outcome: Yes—juror testimony could be considered.
• Key Impact: Created the racial-bias exception to 606(b).

FRE 401 — Relevance

• Rule: Relevant if it has ANY tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable.

United States v. James (9th Cir. 1999)

• Issue: Were unknown records of victim’s violence relevant?
• Rule: 401 requires only any tendency to prove a consequential fact.
• Outcome: Yes—exclusion was reversible error.
• Key Impact: Shows 401’s very low relevance threshold.

FRE 402 — Admissibility

• Rule: Relevant evidence is generally admissible unless other law or rules say otherwise and irrelevant evidence is not.

FRE 104(b) - Conditional Relevance

• Rule: When relevance depends on a fact, admit evidence if there is enough proof for a jury to reasonably find that fact exists.

Cox v. State 1998

• Issue: Was evidence relevant if Cox’s knowledge depended on another fact?
• Rule: Under 104(b), conditional relevance requires enough evidence for a jury to find the condition existed.
• Outcome: Yes—evidence supported an inference Cox knew of the information.
• Key Impact: Illustrates conditional relevance under 104(b).

FRE 403 — Balancing

• Rule: Relevant evidence may be excluded if probative value is SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED by unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, delay, wasting time.

State v. Bocharski (Ariz. 2001)

• Issue: Were gruesome autopsy photos admissible?
• Rule: 403 excludes evidence when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value.
• Outcome: Two photos were improperly admitted, but harmless error.
• Key Impact: Relevant evidence can still fail 403.

Commonwealth v. Serge (Pa. 2006)

• Issue: Was a computer-generated animation unfairly prejudicial?
• Rule: Demonstrative evidence is subject to ordinary 403 balancing.
• Outcome: Animation was properly admitted with safeguards.
• Key Impact: New technology gets the same evidence analysis.

United States v. James (Kleinfeld Dissent) (9th Cir. 1999)

• Issue: Could relevant records still be excluded under 403?
• Rule: 403 permits exclusion for substantially outweighing unfair prejudice.
• Outcome: Yes—Kleinfeld would uphold exclusion.
• Key Impact: 401 relevance does not guarantee 403 admissibility.

United States v. Jackson (E.D.N.Y. 1975)

• Issue: Was prejudicial arrest evidence admissible to show guilt?
• Rule: 403 permits less-prejudicial alternatives like stipulations.
• Outcome: Arrest excluded if Jackson stipulated to key facts.
• Key Impact: Courts may use alternative proof to reduce 403 prejudice.

Old Chief v. United States (1997)

• Issue: Could the government reject a stipulation and reveal the prior felony?
• Rule: 403 considers less-prejudicial alternative evidence.
• Outcome: No—admitting the full conviction was an abuse of discretion.
• Key Impact: Alternative proof can reduce probative value under 403.

FRE 102 - Purpose

To ensure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of legal proceedings, promoting fairness and efficiency in the judicial process.

FRE 105 - Limiting Evidence

• Rule: If evidence is admissible for one purpose/party but not another, the court must restrict it and instruct the jury upon timely request.