Case

Rule

Ballous v. Henri Studios

403

Beech Aircraft v. Rainey

Bemis v. Edwards

803(8)
803(2)

Bourjaily v. US

104

Boyd v. US

404(b)

Boyd v. US
Columbia v. Hawthorne

601 (-606)
407

Crawford v. Washington

Confrontation

Dallas County v. Comml

U Assurance Co
Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Davis v. Washington &
Hammon v. Indiana
Deparvine v. Florida
Donnelly v. US
First Bank Denton v. MD
Casualty Co.
Frye v. US

702
Confrontation
803(2)
804(b)(6)
901

GE v. Joiner

702

Green v. Bock Laundry

609

Green v. Georgia
Hillmon

803(3)

Holmes v. South
Carolina

403

Huddleston v. US

104

Jaffee v. Redmond

Privilege

Jeffries v. Nix

412

Jewell v. CSX
Transportation

801(d)(2)

Johnson v. Lutz

803(6)

King v. Woodcock

804(b)(2)

Holding
Under Fed. R. Evid. 403, when a court endeavors to balance the probative value of evidence against its prejudicial effect it
must give the evidence that amount of probative value it would have if the evidence is believed, not the extent to which
the court finds it believable.
Opinion of public agency's investigative report admissible if opinion is based on factual findings
Declarant lacked firsthand knowledge as on 911 call, he repeated descriptions relayed by other people so inadmissible
Court can consider contents of co-conspirators statement in making a preliminary determination that conspiracy exists
and participation of declarant and party against whom statement made.
Evidence of prior crimes inadmissible to prove the character of the witness to in order to show that he acted in
conformity therewith
Pardon restored the competency of the witness (def objected to him as incompetent due to prior conviction)
subsequent remedial repair evidence inadmissible (prejudicial and against policy)
Confrontation clause excludes testimonial hearsay of a witness who does not appear at trial unless the witness is
unavailable for trial and there was a prior opportunity to cross-examine.
Newspaper from 1901 admissible because necessary and trustworthy, relevant and material, and its admission is within
the trial judges exercise of discretion in holding the hearing within reasonable bounds.
Expert testimony from qualified expert is admissible if it will assist the jury in comprehending the evidence and
determining issues of fact
Confrontation clause cares only about testimonial hearsay; if not testimonial hearsay, may be inadmissible under hearsay
rules but the Constitution does not speak to it.
Narrative of past events does not qualify but describing a contemporaneous event does qualify as excited utterance
Statement against interest is a narrow exception; against admitting statement that exonerates the accused
Authenticating a telephone call in which caller identified himself and herasay question but admissible under prsent
impression
Expert testimony is only admissible if the science has gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community
When reviewing a trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony, an appellate court should apply an abuse of
discretion standard
When there are civil witnesses, the judge must allow them to be impeached with prior felonies. (No judicial discretion
because already a balancing test in the rule) --> 609 amended
Exclusion of this evidence violated due process clause of 14 th Amendment so must come in; Dissent: No justification in
Constitution allowing the Court to supersede a states code of evidence because its application would defeat what this
Court conceives as ends of justice
State of mind showing future conduct admissible.
state's rule governing admissibility of third party
guilt evidence violates a criminal defendant's constitutional right to present a complete defense grounded in due process,
confrontation, and compulsory process clauses. proof of third-party guilt on the basis of the strength of the governments
case violates a criminal defendants right to have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.
Court may admit evidence if there is sufficient effort to support a finding by the jury that the defendant committed the
similar act.
There is a federal psychotherapist-patient privilege.
in any case involving alleged sexual misconduct, evidence concerning the past sexual behavior or sexual
predisposition of an alleged victim must be excluded, with certain limited exceptions
Admission of statements of a party-opponent is grounded not in the presumed trustworthiness of the statements, but on
a kind of estoppel or waiver theory, that a party should be entitled to rely on his opponents statements.
A report prepared by someone acting in regular course of business with information obtained from bystander is
inadmissible
Dying declaration is a thing

Kumho Tire v.
Carmichael

702

Daubert applies not only to scientific testimony but also to technical and other specialized expert testimony

Lust v. Sealy
Mahlandt v. Wild Canid
Survival [Sophie the
Wolf]

803(6)

To raise and preserve for review the claim of improper impeachment with a prior conviction, a defendant must testify at
trial
Business records that are self-serving are inadmissible.

Michelson v. US

404(a); 405

Michigan v. Bryant

Confrontation

Mima Queen v. Hepburn

801

Nebraska v. Vigil

803(4)

Old Chief v. US

403

Palmer v. Hoffman

803(6)

Pappas v. Middle Earth

801(d)(2)(D)

Parker v. Reda

803(5)

Seiler v. Lucasfilms
Shepard v. US
Shepard v. US
State of NC v. Satterfield

1001-1008
804(b)(2)
803(3)
801

State v. McNelly

104

Tanner v. US

606(b)

Luce v. US

Tate v. Robbins &

Meyers, Inc.
Tome v. US

Weird exception of personal knowledge; For these 801(d)(2) exceptions, you dont need personal knowledge

104
801(d)(1)(B)

Trammel v. US

Adverse spouse

Tucker v. Bennett
US v. Abel

801(d)(2)
608, 403

US v. Blackburn

807

US v. Brackeen

609(a)(2)

US v. Brown

703

US v. Butterworth

801(d)(1)(A)

Prosecution can cross-examine a witness about knowledge of the defendant's prior arrest after the defendant has put his
character at issue, but only for the purposes of refuting evidence of the defendant's good character or to test the
sufficiency of the witness's knowledge about defendant
Shifts back to questions of reliability and hearsay; constitutionally admissible because it is much like the excited
utterance hearsay exception.
Hearsay evidence is in its own nature inadmissible-exceptions include one of pedigree, prescription, custom or boundary
or of public history
Statements with dual purpose of medical diagnosis and investigation are admissible if proponent shows that declarants
purpose was to assist in medical diagnosis and statements were reasonably related to medical diagnosis
Evidence is not admissible if the prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value--especially if a less prejudicial method to
prove something exists
Business records that are self-serving are inadmissible.
Employee is not authorized to make statement (so fails under C) but he is an agent speaking on a matter related to his job
while the relationship existed so admissible under (D).
memorandum prepared reflected knowledge at time so admissible; as recorded recollection, officers testimony
minimized danger of unreliability
Best evidence rule requires that the originals of the drawings be submitted in evidence
Declarant to have spoken with consciousness of a swift and certain doom
State of mind to show past conduct inadmissible.
Conduct was statement within meaning of 801(a) and thus, inadmissible hearsay under 802.
Trial court correct in determining that reasonable juror could find that D was person with whom W spoke to in jail;
inability to ID D at trial goes to weight of testimony not to its admissibility
606(b) prohibits juror testimony regarding juror conduct during deliberations. Drug and alcohol use is not an outside
influence about which a juror is competent to testify
based of 104(b), relevancy of manual to continuing duty to warn depended on evidence showing that D knew that P
possessed the hoist but there was no evidence that D knew that P possessed it so manual is irrelevant.
To be admissible, a prior consistent statement must predate the motive.
Witness spouse holds the privilege, not D spouse. This privilege exists to foster marital harmony but if you testify against
spouse, no need to protect harmony.
D cannot offer his own statement that he didnt do it.
bias is never a collateral issue--always relevant, subject to balancing test of 403
Evidence admissible because reliable piece of evidenceoptometrist had no stake; no bias; had no idea who this person
was but was just doing his regular job (trustworthiness).
Crimes involving "dishonesty or false statement" include only those that factually or by definition entail some element of
misrepresentation or deceit
allows experts to rely upon data which itself would not have been admissible, if this data is "of a type reasonably relied
upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions
Statements made before grand jury are given under oath so admissible even if other party wasnt there to cross at the
time.

US v. Cunningham

404(b)

US v. Curry

801

US v. Dowdell

803(6)

US v. Ebron

804(b)(3)

US v. Flecha

801(d)(2)(B)

US v. Fluker

901

US v. Hanna

702

US v. Hickey

602

US v. Houlihan
US v. Jackson

803(3)
803(3)

US v. Johnson

901

US v. Lepanto

901

US v. Lewis

801(d)(1)(C)

US v. Lloyd

801

US v. Long

Adverse spouse

US v. Lutwak

Marital comm

US v. Mastrangelo

804(b)(6)

US v. Mezzanatto

410

US v. Montgomery

Marital comm

US v. Nixon

404(a); 405

US v. Norwood

801

US v. Owens

801(d)(1)(C)

US v. Salerno
US v. Towns

803(6)

US v. Webster

801(d)(1)(A)

US v. Zenni

801

Evidence of prior bad acts may be admitted to show motive, but the judge may exclude such evidence if there is a
possibility of undue influence or prejudice
Curry wants to testify about what his brother told him and that his brother lied to him; offered for his own statement of
mind so not hearsay.
Non-adversarial document is routine business record
differentiates Williamson by emphasizing declarant statement made to fellow inmate and was not a post-arrest
confession
Adoptive admission; would not expect B who heard this to answer because circumstances were not such that he would
have responded. Silence is not particularly telling.
Government use of circumstantial evidence satisfied authentication reqs for an email in which author nor declarants who
saw author testified
judge abused his discretion by permitting expert testimony on whether a reasonable person would foresee
communication as threatening because laypeople are qualified to analyze the question
Threshold of 602 low; testimony not excluded under 602 unless no reasonable juror could believe that witness had ability
and opportunity to perceive event that he testifies about
MA says state of mind to show future conduct of another is admissible
Self-serving statements admissible only if they can be characterized as non-hearsay or fall within an exception.
Requirements of admissibility of 901(a) met. Based on victims testimony, reasonable juror could find that his ax was
weapon allegedly used in assault.
Judge adequately considered circumstances surrounding preservation and custody of item to determine that showing
sufficient.
P able to submit pretrial identification in a photo line-up to show that witness recognized D.
That D violated probation by Ds probation officer is hearsay because contains multiple levels of hearsay and included
statements by an adversary of D (ex-gf); P also made no attempt to show cause for declarants absence
Nothing wrong with D counsels summation and instruction invited jury to disregard plain meaning of agreement; court
should have helped jury evaluate Ws appearance properlyvery fact of waiving marital privilege is itself damaging.
Reason for common law rule is to protect sanctity and tranquility of marital relationshipno need to preserve because
marriages were a sham.
Forfeiture exception-- D made witness unavailable so excuse that prior evidence inadmissible because can't crossexamine is BS
defendant may waive the exclusionary provisions of FRE 410 which generally exclude plea negotiation statements made
between a prosecutor and defendant
Trial court erred in admitting wife's letter and testimony because confidential
Cross-examination of character witnesses questions about prior bad acts require: alleged bad act must have basis in fact
and incidents inquired about must be relevant to the character trait at issue (good faith standard)
When it is proved that D made a statement to X, with purpose of showing probable state of mind thereby induced in X,
evidence is not hearsay.
neither confrontation clause nor 802 is violated by admission of identification statement of a witness who is unable,
because of memory loss, to testify concerning basis for identification.
Lower court must look at whether government had similar motive where a criminal D wants to introduce grand jury
testimony of witness asserting 5th Amendment privilege at trial
Record that are kept to fulfill government regulations are business records if kept in the regular course of business.
Hostile witness offers exculpatory evidence; P has no choice but to impeach him based on prior inconsistent statements-admissible because based on good-faith standard
An implied assertion is not hearsaycalls are nonassertive verbal conduct reflecting a belief individuals had about the
house

Washington v. Texas

601-606

Weisgram v. Marley Co.

expert
testimony

Williamson v. US

804(b)(3)

Zippo Manu Co. v.

Rogers

803(3)

Sixth Amendment compulsory process clause and a criminal defendants right to present a defense required the
abrogation of a state evidentiary rule that prevented the defendant from calling an alleged accomplice as a defense
witness
when the testimony of an expert witness is rejected as incompetent that judgment may be directed for the defendant and
no new trial allowed. If the expert testimony that is rejected is the key to the plaintiff's case, then no new trial need be an
option.
Must parse each sentence and ask if each part is against interest; statements admitting fault admissible but all other
statements in narrative to be excluded
Survey response is hearsay but comes in under state of mind exception.