Ch4. Rules of Evidence — Admissibility and Weight

Types of Evidence and Admissibility

Types of Evidence:
Direct evidence: proves the fact in issue without
  requiring an inference (eyewitness testimony of
  the crime itself).
Circumstantial evidence: requires an inference from
  an established fact to the fact in issue (defendant's
  fingerprints at the scene).
Testimonial evidence: oral statements by witnesses.
Physical / real evidence: tangible objects (weapon,
  documents, DNA).
Documentary evidence: records, business records, etc.

Admissibility (FRE 401–403):
Relevant: tends to make a material fact more or less
  probable than without the evidence (FRE 401).
Not excluded by a specific rule (FRE 402).
Probative value not substantially outweighed by danger
  of unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time
  (FRE 403).

Admissibility vs. Weight:
Admissibility: threshold question — may the jury
  consider this evidence? Decided by judge.
Weight (probative value): how much credit should the
  jury give it? Decided by the jury.

Confessions and Voluntariness

Voluntariness Requirement (Due Process / 5th Amendment):
A confession is admissible only if it was voluntary —
  the product of a rational intellect and free will.
Totality of circumstances test: age, education,
  intelligence, prior experience with police,
  duration of interrogation, physical condition,
  and any coercive tactics used.

Circumstances That Render a Confession Involuntary:
Physical coercion (torture, beating).
Psychological coercion (threats, deception that
  shocks the conscience).
Extended sleep deprivation or denial of food/water.
Promises of leniency that overbear the will.
Deception: officers may use limited deception
  (false evidence of guilt) without rendering a
  confession involuntary per se (Frazier v. Cupp, 1969),
  but extreme deception may be coercive.

Corroboration Requirement:
A defendant's confession alone is insufficient to
  support a conviction — the corpus delicti (body of
  the crime) must be established by independent evidence.
This prevents conviction of innocent people based solely
  on false or coerced confessions.

Miranda and the 5th Amendment:
Miranda violation → statements suppressed in the
  prosecution's case-in-chief.
Statements may still be used for impeachment
  if the defendant testifies inconsistently
  (Harris v. New York, 1971).
Physical evidence derived from a voluntary (post-
  Miranda violation) statement generally not suppressed
  (United States v. Patane, 2004).

Hearsay Rule and Exceptions (FRE 801–807)

Hearsay (FRE 801):
An out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth
  of the matter asserted.
General rule: hearsay is inadmissible (FRE 802).

Rationale:
Declarant is not under oath, not in court, cannot
  be cross-examined for demeanor, reliability, and
  accuracy — violates the Confrontation Clause
  (Crawford v. Washington, 2004 — testimonial
  hearsay requires unavailability + prior opportunity
  to cross-examine).

Key Exceptions (FRE 803 — declarant availability
  immaterial):
Present sense impression (FRE 803(1)).
Excited utterance (FRE 803(2)).
Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition
  (FRE 803(3)).
Statements for medical diagnosis/treatment (FRE 803(4)).
Business records (FRE 803(6)).
Public records (FRE 803(8)).

Exceptions Requiring Declarant Unavailability (FRE 804):
Former testimony (cross-examination opportunity).
Dying declaration (belief of imminent death).
Statement against interest.
Forfeiture by wrongdoing (FRE 804(b)(6)).

Residual Exception (FRE 807):
Trustworthy hearsay not covered by enumerated
  exceptions; court must give advance notice.

Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Exclusionary Rule:
Evidence obtained in violation of the 4th, 5th, or
  6th Amendment is inadmissible in the prosecution's
  case-in-chief.
4th Amendment: Mapp v. Ohio (1961) — incorporated
  to states.
5th Amendment: involuntary confessions; Miranda violations.
6th Amendment: statements obtained after formal charges
  without counsel (Massiah v. United States, 1964).

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree:
Derivative evidence flowing from an illegal search,
  arrest, or interrogation is also suppressed
  (Wong Sun v. United States, 1963).
Example: illegal arrest → statement → location of
  evidence → physical evidence all suppressed.

Exceptions:
Good-faith (Leon): officer reasonably relied on a
  facially valid warrant later found defective
  (United States v. Leon, 1984).
Inevitable discovery: prosecution shows by a
  preponderance that the evidence would have been
  discovered through lawful means anyway
  (Nix v. Williams, 1984).
Independent source: evidence discovered through a
  source entirely independent of the illegality.
Attenuation: connection between the illegality and
  the evidence is sufficiently attenuated (factors:
  time elapsed, intervening events, flagrancy of
  misconduct — Brown v. Illinois, 1975).

Corroboration Requirement ★★★★★ : A confession alone cannot support a conviction. The corpus delicti — that a crime actually occurred — must be proven by independent evidence. Prevents convictions based solely on false or coerced confessions. Memory tip: Confession alone = not enough; independent corroboration required.

Hearsay Rule — FRE 802 ★★★★★ : Out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted = hearsay = generally inadmissible. Dozens of exceptions in FRE 803–807. Memory tip: OCS + TOMA = hearsay; know the key exceptions.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree — Three Exceptions ★★★★☆ : Good faith · Inevitable discovery · Independent source. (Plus attenuation doctrine.) Memory tip: GII + Attenuation = exceptions to exclusion.

Practice Quiz

Q. What are the admissibility requirements for a police-written statement obtained during interrogation?

For a written or recorded statement to be admissible: (1) Miranda warnings must have been given if the defendant was in custody at the time of questioning; (2) the statement must have been voluntary — not the product of coercion, threats, or overborne will; (3) if the defendant invoked the right to counsel, interrogation must have stopped immediately. In federal court, a defendant’s post-arrest statement obtained in violation of the prompt-presentment requirement (McNabb-Mallory rule) may also be suppressed. Defense counsel will challenge admissibility through a suppression hearing under FRE 104(a) before trial.

Q. What is the practical purpose of the corpus delicti (corroboration) rule, and what satisfies it?

The corroboration rule prevents a conviction resting solely on a defendant’s out-of-court confession, which may be false (given under coercion, mental illness, or inducement). The prosecution must independently establish the corpus delicti — evidence that the crime described in the confession actually occurred. The corroboration need not prove every element; it need only establish that the crime likely occurred. Examples: victim’s injuries corroborate a confession to assault; a burned building corroborates a confession to arson. The confession then adds the identity of the perpetrator.