Evidence

Fisher
2nd Edition
ISBN: 9781599410319
Page Case Name Citation Court Audio
7 Tanner v. United States 483 U.S. 107 Supreme Court of the United States, 1987 Download
25 United States v. James 169 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1999 Download
32 Cox v. State 696 N.E.2d 853 (Ind. 1998) Supreme Court of Indiana, 1998 Download
39 State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 (Ariz. 2001) Supreme Court of Arizona, 2001 Download
Case Information Fact Summary Rule of Law
Tanner v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States, 1987
483 U.S. 107
Pg. 7 		Petitioners were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States and of committing mail fraud. After the trial, Tanner's attorney received an unsolicited phone call from one of the jurors, who informed Tanner's attorney that several of the jurors consumed alcohol during the lunch breaks at various times throughout the trial, causing them to sleep through the afternoons. Tanner's attorney also received a visit at his house from a second juror who reported "he felt like . . . the jury was on one big party." The second juror additionally reported that jurors used alcohol, marijuana and cocaine during the trial. The issue was whether the District Court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing, including juror testimony, on juror alcohol and drug use during the trial. Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) states "Competency of Juror as Witness . . . Inquiry into validity of verdict or indictment. 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 that or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror's mental processes in connection therewith. But a juror may testify about (1) whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention, (2) or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror, or (3) whether there was a mistake in entering the verdict onto the verdict form. A juror's affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror concerning may not be received on a matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying be received for these purposes." In this case, the Court held that the allegations of substance abuse were an internal matter and thus the jury testimony could not be permitted pursuant to F.R.E. 606(b).
United States v. James
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1999
169 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc)
Pg. 25 		Victim told James, the defendant, of his violent past. After the defendant's daughter killed the victim, the defendant claimed self-defense for her role in aiding and abetting her daughter. The defendant sought to introduce into evidence court documents that detailed to the defendant's prior violent misconduct, even though the defendant did not know such documents existed prior to the victim's death. The trial judge did not allow the documents to be introduced. "Because the crux of James's defense rested on her credibility and because her credibility could be directly corroborated through the excluded documentary evidence, exclusion of the documents was prejudicial and more probably than not affected the verdict."
Cox v. State
Supreme Court of Indiana, 1998
696 N.E.2d 853 (Ind. 1998)
Pg. 32 		Cox was convicted of murdering Leonard, who had filed charges against a friend of Cox for molesting Leonard's daughter. At trial, Cox objected to testimony regarding the bond hearing of Cox's friend just a few days before the murder. The friend was denied a bond reduction at this hearing, where additional charges against the friend were also brought. Cox objected to the testimony about the hearing because there was no additional evidence that Cox knew about what happened at the hearing. "Under [Rule 104(b)'s} terms, the court may admit the evidence only after it makes a preliminary determination that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the conditional fact exists. . . . We adopt the prevailing federal standard that %u201Cthe judge must determine only that a reasonable jury could make the requisite factual determination based on the evidence before it.%u201D
State v. Bocharski
Supreme Court of Arizona, 2001
22 P.3d 43 (Ariz. 2001)
Pg. 39 		Bocharski was convicted of murder and burglary. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence photographs of the victim that were "gruesome, highly inflammatory, and unduly prejudicial." "Relevant photographs may be received in evidence even though they 'also have a tendency to prejudice the jury against the person who committed the offense.' . . . This does not mean, however, that every relevant photograph should automatically be admitted. If a photograph 'is of a nature to incite passion or inflame the jury,' . . ., the court must determine whether the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the exhibit's probative value. . . . A trial court's decision in this regard will generally not be disturbed unless we find a clear abuse of discretion."