1 / 22

Problems 3C & 4

Problems 3C & 4. Problem 3C. Do Problem 3C. Willy’s Baseball Bat Testimony. Forbidden Character Propensity Inference. Can’t Use Specific Acts Under 405. Folks who hit others w/ bats are SML to be violent people. People who are violent are SML to kill. 1 yr ago, D hit O with BB bat.

remedy
Download Presentation

Problems 3C & 4

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Problems 3C & 4

  2. Problem 3C Do Problem 3C

  3. Willy’s Baseball Bat Testimony Forbidden Character Propensity Inference Can’t Use Specific Acts Under 405 Folks who hit others w/ bats are SML to be violent people People who are violent are SML to kill 1 yr ago, D hit O with BB bat D is a violent person D killed V

  4. Suppose O & V Were Brothers Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? No Inference from Motive 405 doesn’t apply because this isn’t character evidence Folks who don’t like one brother are SML to not like the other. People who dislike a person are SML to kill that person 1 yr ago, D hit O with BB bat D does not like V D killed V What about 405’s limits on specific act testimony?

  5. Suppose D had hit V with Wrench If 2 acts are done in the same unusual way, it is SML that they were done by the same person. Connecting Fact V was killed by being hit with a wrench Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? No Inference re method not character 1 yr ago, D hit O with wrench D killed V

  6. Problem 4 Do Problem 4

  7. Each piece of evidence must be offered to prove one or more of these elements under a permissible evidentiary hypothesis. What Does Ted Need to Prove to Establish His Defense of Truth? What does “killer” mean? P is someone who has killed in the past? P is a “killing sort of guy”? • Polly has no conscience. • Polly is a killer. • Polly chopped off Victor’s head. • Polly did so casually.

  8. Polly Beheaded Melissa I saw Polly chop off Melissa’s head. • Polly has no conscience. • Polly is a killer. • Polly chopped off Victor’s head. • Polly did so casually. Walt

  9. Polly Has No Conscience Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? No What about 405? Specific act OK since character = element Specific Act? Opinion? Reputation? One who beheads is SML to have no conscience No Evidentiary Hypothesis Required Polly beheaded Melissa Polly has no conscience Polly has no conscience

  10. P is a Killer Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? No What about 405? Specific act OK since character = element One who beheads is SML to be a killer (KSG) No Evidentiary Hypothesis Required Polly beheaded Melissa Polly is a (KSG) Polly is a killer (KSG)

  11. Inferring P Beheaded V Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? Yes. Barred by 404. One who beheads is SML to be a violent person Violent folks are SML to behead others Polly beheaded Melissa Polly beheaded Victor Polly is a violent person

  12. Another Possible Inference If 2 acts are done in the same unusual way, it is SML that they were done by the same person. Connecting Fact Victor was beheaded by someone. Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? No Inference re method not character Polly beheaded Melissa Polly beheaded Victor

  13. 403 Balance for “P chopped off M’s Head” Trial Time & Confusion P has no conscience (E#1) Lock’m Up P is a Killer (E#2) Propensity (E#3) Identity (E#3) Probative Value Prejudicial Effects

  14. P is a Killer (Meaning thatP has Killed in the Past) No. Inference about effect of physical act not about character. Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? One who has beheaded has killed Polly beheaded Melissa Polly is a (has killed in the past)

  15. Polly has no conscience Specific Act? Opinion? Reputation? Polly has no conscience • Polly has no conscience. • Polly is a killer. • Polly chopped off Victor’s head. • Polly did so casually. Walt

  16. Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? Yes: Barred by 404 Inferring P Beheaded V People who have no conscience are SML to behead people P has no conscience P beheaded Victor

  17. Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? No. OK under 404 What about 405? OK 405 Permits Opinion Form Inferring P has no conscience No Evidentiary Hypothesis Required P has no conscience P has no conscience

  18. Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? No. This is OK under 404. Inferring P is a killer Inference from BCT to another BCT -- not BCT to conduct. People who have no conscience are SML to also be KSGs P has no conscience P is a Killer (KSG)

  19. Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? Yes. Barred by 404. Inferring P is a killer People who have no conscience are SML to kill. P is a Killer (Killed in Past) P has no conscience

  20. 403 Balance for “P has no conscience” Trial Time & Confusion Lock’m Up P has no conscience (E#1) P killed V (E#3) P is a Killer (Killed in Past) E#2 P is a killer (KSG) (E#2) Probative Value Prejudicial Effects

  21. How is Winston’s Testimony Different? • Reputation • Is this OK under 405 • What about the inferences? • No conscience? • Killer (KSG) • Killer (KIP) • Beheaded Victor

  22. Look at Waldo’s & Wendy’s Testimony • Waldo’s testimony is the converse of whose testimony? • Wendy’s testimony is the converse of whose testimony?

More Related