EvidenceProf Blog

Editor: Colin Miller
Univ. of South Carolina School of Law

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Be An Original: 5th Circuit Finds Computer Printout Of Insurance Policy Was An "Original" Under Rule 1001(3)

Federal Rule of Evidence 1002, the Best Evidence Rule, provides that

To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by Act of Congress.

That said, Federal Rule of Evidence 1001(3) provides that

An "original" of a writing or recording is the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An "original" of a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom. If data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an "original".

It was this last sentence of Rule 1001(3) that proved fatal to the defendants' Best Evidence Rule appeal in Time Ins. Co. v. Estate of White, 2011 WL 5105790 (5th Cir. 2011).

Continue reading

October 29, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, October 28, 2011

One Mississippi: Court Of Appeals Of Mississippi Applies Ridiculous Exception To Rule 404(b) In Child Molestation Case

Like its federal counterpartMississippi Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

In other words, under Rule 404(b), evidence of past rapes by a defendant charged with rape would be inadmissible to prove, "Once a rapist, always a rapist." And evidence of past acts of child molestation would be inadmissible tor prove, "Once a child molester." That said, Federal Rule of Evidence 413 and Federal Rule of Evidence 414, passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, do allow for the admission of evidence of past rapes and acts of child molestation to prove propensity and conformity. Mississippi does not, however, have counterparts to Rules 413 and 414? So why do Mississippi courts routinely allow for the admission of evidence of past rapes and acts of child molestation by defendants? Let's check out the recent opinion of the Court of Appeals of Mississippi inYoung v. State, 2011 WL 5027251 (Miss.App. 2011).

Continue reading

October 28, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, October 27, 2011

You Complete Me: Court Of Appeals Of Hawai'i Finds No Confrontation Clause Problem With Rule Of Completeness

In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the Supreme Court found that that the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution is violated when hearsay is "testimonial," admitted against a criminal defendant, and the hearsay declarant does not testify at the defendant's trial, unless (1) the declarant was unavailable for trial, and (2) the defendant was previously able to cross-examine the declarant. In other words, the Confrontation Clause is violated when testimony or testimonial hearsay is admitted against a defendant and he is not given the chance to cross-examine the declarant.

Meanwhile, like its federal counterpartHawai'i Rule of Evidence 106, the rule of completeness, provides that

When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the party at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.

So, let's say that a criminal defendant admits part of a testimonial statement by a nontestifying declarant under an exception to the rule against hearsay and the prosecution then seeks to other parts of that testimonial statement under the rule of completeness. Can the prosecution do so consistent with the Confrontation Clause? According to the recent opinion of the Court of Appeals of Hawai'i in State v. Brooks, 2011 WL 5029439 (Hawai'i App. 2011), the answer is "yes."

Continue reading

October 27, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Law & Crit, Take 2: "The Green Mile" & The Death Penalty

I can vividly remember the announcement of Stephen King trying his hand at the serialized novel with "The Green Mile" back in 1996. Two things especially excited me about the announcement. Back in grade school, I had done a report about the invention of the cliffhanger. In those pre-internet days, I remember the joy I experienced upon uncovering the needle in the Dewey Decimal system when I learned that the original cliffhanger was an actual cliffhanger: Thomas Hardy published "A Pair of Blue Eyes" in serialized fashion in Tinsley's Magazine from 1872-1873, and, at the end of one serial, Hardy chose to leave one of the main protagonists, Henry Knight, literally hanging off a cliff staring into the stony eyes of a trilobite. I wanted to see the master of horror tackle the format.

Second, my favorite Stephen King book was "Different Seasons." "Different Seasons" was actually a collection of four Stephen King novellas, and part of the reason that I think I liked it the most was that it was the most cinematic of King's works. Indeed, three of the novellas were eventually turned into pretty good movies: "The Body" became the Rob Reiner classic, "Stand by Me," "Apt Pupil" became Bryan Singer's creepy movie of the same name, and "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption" became Frank Dararabont's Oscar-nominated and slightly less awkwardly-titled "The Shawshank Redemption." The last of these was my favorites, and "The Green Mile" promised to return me to King doing a period prison drama, which whetted my appetite. Every month from March to August in 1996, I would go to the local Waldenbooks and pick up the latest entry in the series, hanging on each new cliff that King threw at me.

That said, when it was later announced that Dararabont would be adapting "The Green Mile" as a feature length film, I was perplexed. Not because I disliked "The Shawshank Redemption." I loved it and like many others caught it several times during its constant loop on TNT. But I was confused because more than any other King work (except maybe "The Dark Tower"), it seemed to scream out for the miniseries treatment a la "It" or "The Stand" given its serialized nature. In the end, though, I don't know if it was the format that dulled the movie version of "The Green Mile" for me as much as the fact that it was too on the nose. "The Shawshank Redemption" was a bit on the nose as well, but that doesn't matter when you have Morgan Freeman giving the best voiceover narration in the history of cinema.

Dararabont later turned his adaptation of King's "The Mist" into a post-9/11 allegory (much like Ronald D. Moore's "Battlestar Galactica"), which elevated my appreciation of the movie (and freaked me out). But his adaptation of the "The Green Mile" didn't really dig beneath the surface of King's book. It's a movie about the death penalty, but it's not much more than a story about the execution of a wrongfully convicted man with magical powers. Like Dararabont's "The Walking Dead," it's a fun enough ride but lacking in (figurative) bite.

Continue reading

October 26, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Undiagnosed: Court Of Appeals Of Iowa Finds Granddaughters' Statements Inadmissible Under Rule 5.803(4)

Like its federal counterpartIowa Rule of Evidence 5.803(4) provides an exception to the rule against hearsay for 

Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.

So, let's say that four granddaughters tell a forensic interviewer and a child protective worker that their grandfather physically and sexually abused them. Would these statements qualify as statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment? According to the recent opinion of the Court of Appeals of Iowa in State v. Moore, 2011 WL 4950180 (Iowa App. 2011), the answer is "no," at least based upon the facts before it.

Continue reading

October 25, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, October 24, 2011

The Privilege Was Mine: Eastern District Of Virginia Finds Rule 612 Refreshment Didn't Vitiate Privilege

Federal Rule of Evidence 612 states that

Except as otherwise provided in criminal proceedings by section 3500 of title 18, United States Code, if a witness uses a writing to refresh memory for the purpose of testifying, either--

(1) while testifying, or

(2) before testifying, if the court in its discretion determines it is necessary in the interests of justice,

an adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness thereon, and to introduce in evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness. If it is claimed that the writing contains matters not related to the subject matter of the testimony the court shall examine the writing in camera, excise any portions not so related, and order delivery of the remainder to the party entitled thereto. Any portion withheld over objections shall be preserved and made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal. If a writing is not produced or delivered pursuant to order under this rule, the court shall make any order justice requires, except that in criminal cases when the prosecution elects not to comply, the order shall be one striking the testimony or, if the court in its discretion determines that the interests of justice so require, declaring a mistrial.

So, let's say that a party uses privileged documents to refresh the recollection of a witness prior to a deposition. Does the party now need to produce those documents to the adverse party? If you want to know the answer, the recent opinion of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Brown v. Tethys Bioscience, Inc., 2011 WL 4829340 (E.D.Va. 2011), is probably your best bet.

Continue reading

October 24, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, October 23, 2011

How To Be Elusive: Colorado Court Of Appeals Finds Trial Court Erred In Granting New Trial Based On Jury Misconduct

Similar to its federal counterpartColorado Rule of Evidence 606(b) provides that

Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon his or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning his mental processes in connection therewith, except that a juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jurors' attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. Nor may his affidavit or evidence of any statement by him concerning a matter about which he would be precluded from testifying be received for these purposes.

So, let's say that a defendant is convicted of vehicular eluding. And let's say that several jurors had looked at or heard a dictionary definition of "elude" during deliberations. Can the defendant present juror affidavits concerning what happened, and will those affidavits be sufficient to award the defendant a new trial? Those were the questions addressed by the Colorado Court of Appeals, Division II, in its recent opinion in People v. Holt, 2011 WL 4837640 (Colo.App. 2011).

Continue reading

October 23, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)