CONTENTS › File Library › TOCS › Law School › Auth… · Contents xi CHAPTER THREE RELEVANCE, PROBATIVE VALUE, AND THE RULE 403 DANGERS 133 A. Relevance—the Basic Concept

CONTENTS

ix

Preface xliiiAcknowledgments xlvIntroduction to the Study of Evidence xlviiSpecial Notice on Citations xlix

CHAPTER ONE

THE CASE OF PEOPLE v. JOHNSON 1

The People of the State of California v. James Johnson 2Notes and Questions 84

CHAPTER TWO

THE PROCESS OF PROOF: HOW TRIALS ARE STRUCTURED 85

A. Introduction to the Study of Evidence 85How to Use This Book 85Studying Evidence 86Reading the “Restyled” FRE 86

B. The Adversary/Jury Trial System: An Overview 87 1. The Adversary System 88

The Roles of the Trial Participants 88Jury Trials versus Bench Trials 89

C. Adversarial Presentation of Proof: The Idea of Competing Narratives and “Theory of the Case” 89

D. The Structure of a Trial 91 1. Pretrial Motions 91 2. Jury Selection 92 3. Preliminary Instructions 93 4. Opening Statements 93 5. Presentation of Evidence and the Burden of Production 94

x Contents

a. The Order of the Parties’ Presentation of Cases 94b. The Burden of Production 95

6. Post-evidence Matters 96 7. Closing Arguments 97 8. Jury Instructions and the Burden of Persuasion 98 9. Jury Deliberations and Verdict 98 10. Post-trial Motions 99

E. Examination of Witnesses and Fre 611 101 1. FRE 611 101 2. Explanation of FRE 611(a) and (b) 102

Breadth of the Court’s Power 102Direct Examination 102FRE 611(b): The Scope of Cross-examination 102Redirect and Recross-examination 104

3. Elaboration of FRE 611(a) and (b) and the Examination of Witnesses: Practical Applications 104a. Direct Examination 104b. Cross-examination 105

Strategy and Goals of Cross-examination 106Cross-examination Technique 106

c. Direct Examination of “Adverse” and “Hostile” Witnesses 107 4. Explanation of FRE 611(c): Leading Questions 108 5. FRE 611(c) and Leading Questions: Practical Applications 108

a. What Is a Leading Question? 108b. Leading Questions: Tactical Considerations 110

F. Objections and Preservation of Error for Appeal: Fre 103 110 1. FRE 103 111 2. Explanation of FRE 103(a) and (d): Objections, Offers of Proof,

and Preservation of Evidentiary Issues for Appeal 111 3. FRE 103(a)(1) and (2) and Objections: Practical Applications 112

a. Two Types of Objections 112b. Timing of Objections 114c. Stating the Objection 116d. Tactical Considerations 117

4. FRE 103(a) and (d): Preservation of Error for Appellate Review 118a. Making the Record — in General 118b. Making the Record for Appeal of Evidentiary Rulings 119c. Standards of Appellate Review of Evidentiary Errors 119

Trial Objection Cheat Sheet 120G. Reflections on Natural Reasoning and the Adversary System 122

1. The Adversary System Reconsidered 122 2. Why Have Rules of Evidence? 124 3. Natural Reasoning and the Trial Process 127 4. The Behavior of Factfinders 131

Contents xi

CHAPTER THREE

RELEVANCE, PROBATIVE VALUE, AND THE RULE 403 DANGERS 133

A. Relevance—the Basic Concept 134 1. FRE 401 and 402 134 2. Explanation of FRE 401 and 402 135

a. Relevant Evidence Is Offered to Prove a Fact of Consequence 135b. Relevant Evidence Must Make a Fact of Consequence More

Probable or Less 137Probable FRE 401’s Minimal Standard of “Any Tendency” 137Inferential Reasoning Is Based on Generalizations from

Knowledge and Experience 138Relevance Requires Reasonable Generalizations 139Generalizations Can Be the Subject of Proof 139Limits on Reasonable Generalizations 139Judges Do Not Assess the Evidence Themselves 140The Policy of FRE 401 Favors Admissibility 140

c. Relevance Is Not Sufficiency 141d. Direct Versus Circumstantial Evidence 142e. Background Information 143

3. Applications of FRE 401 and 402 144Knapp v. State 144United States v. Stever 145Notes and Questions 147Key Points 148Problems 148

4. Reflection on the Requirement of Relevancy 151B. Probative Value and the Rule 403 Dangers 151

1. FRE 403 151 2. Explanation of FRE 403 152

a. Probative Value 152Strength of the Underlying Inferences 153Certainty of the Starting Point 154Judges Do Not Weigh Credibility 154Length of the Inferential Chain 154Need 154

b. Rule 403 Dangers 155Unfair Prejudice 156Confusion of the Issues 157Misleading the Jury 158Undue Delay, Waste of Time, and Needless Cumulative

Evidence 159c. Probative Value Substantially Outweighed by One of the

FRE 403 Dangers 160

Contents

The Meaning of “Substantially Outweigh” 160The Effect of Limiting Instructions on the Balancing Process 161

3. FRE 403: Specific Problems and Applications 163a. Gruesome Exhibits and Other Potentially Inflammatory

Evidence 163b. Spoliation 164c. Curative Admissibility 165

Key Points 166Problems 167

4. Appellate Review of Judicial Discretion Under FRE 403 169United States v. Hitt 171Notes and Questions 173Old Chief v. United States 174Notes and Questions 178

C. Reflection on Relevance, Probative Value, and Judicial Discretion 180 1. Can Relevance and Probative Value Be Measured? 181 2. Are Juries Rational? 184 3. How to Regulate Judicial Discretion? 185

Assessments 186

CHAPTER FOUR

FOUNDATION 189

A. Foundation for Witnesses: Credibility and the Firsthand Knowledge Requirement 190 1. FRE 601 190 2. Explanation of FRE 601 190

Exceptions 191Testimonial Competence May Be Challenged on Individual Basis 191


Personal Knowledge 192Evidence Sufficient to Support a Finding 192Exception for Expert Witnesses 193

5. FRE 602: Practical Applications 194Key Points 195Problems 195

B. Foundation Forexhibits 196 1. FRE 901 196 2. Explanation of FRE 901 197

What the Exhibit Is Claimed to Be 197Evidence Sufficient to Support a Finding 197

3. FRE 901—Practical Applications: The Problem of Incomplete Foundations 198

xii

Contents

a. Basic Procedure: Offering an Exhibit Through a Foundation Witness 199

b. Partial Foundations and Connecting Up 201Conditional Admissibility: “Connecting Up” 201Reducing the “Claim” Not an Option 202Overlooked Incomplete Foundations 203

4. FRE 901—Practical Applications: Procedural Steps 204Step One: The Claim 205Step Two: The Witness 205Step Three: Marking the Exhibit 205Step Four: Showing the Exhibit 205Step Five: Laying the Foundation 205Step Six: Moving the Exhibit 206Step Seven: Objection, Ruling, Counterevidence 206Streamlined Exhibit Procedures 207Key Points 207Problems 208

5. FRE 901—Practical Applications: Generic Foundation Questions for Various Exhibit Types 208Types of Exhibits: Real v. Depictive 209a. Real Evidence Foundation Issues 209 Identity 209

Unchanged Condition 209Proving Identity Through an Identifiable Marking or

Characteristic 210Proving Identity Through Chain of Custody 210Proving Unchanged Condition Through Chain of Custody 211

b. Depictive Evidence Foundation Issues 212Recordings and Photographs 212“Now-and-Then/Endpoint” Foundations for Recordings and

Photographs 213“Process” Foundations for Recordings and Photographs 213The Impact of Technological Change on Foundation for

Recordings and Photographs 214FRE 403 and Recordings or Photographs 215Demonstrative Evidence 215A Further Note About Photographs and Recordings 216

c. Written Documents 217Foundation for Writings 217Depictive Writings Are Usually Hearsay 218Business Records 218Ancient Documents 218Electronic Writings 219

d. Authenticity and Genuineness of Exhibits 219

xiii

Contents

e. Sum Up: The Flexibility of FRE 901 Foundations 220Key Points 220Problems 221



C. Preliminary Fact Questions Under Fre 104 226 1. FRE 104 227 2. Explanation of FRE 104(a) 227

Judicial Factfinding Under FRE 104(a) 228The Decision Process Under FRE 104(a) 229Key Points 230

3. Explanation of FRE 104(b) 230Note on Conditional Relevance 231a. Relevance Depending on “Whether a Fact Exists”:

FRE 104(b) as a General Foundation Requirement 231b. Conditional Admissibility 233

4. FRE 104(b) in Practice 234Objections Under FRE 104(b) 234Inadequate Generalizations as Missing Facts 235Judge and Jury Functions Under FRE 104(b) 236

5. Theoretical Justifications for the FRE 104(a)/104(b) Distinction 237Key Points 238Problems 239

6. Reflection on FRE 104(b): Is There a Conditional Relevance “Problem”? 240Problem 241

D. The Best Evidence Rule 241 1. FRE 1001–1008 242 2. Explanation of Best Evidence Rule 244

The Basic Rule 244Exceptions 244Other Evidence of Contents 244In Order to Prove Its Contents 244

3. When Is Evidence Offered to “Prove the Contents” of a Document? 245Type 1: Document Contents Have Independent Legal

Significance 246Type 2: The Document Could Be Used to Prove an

Underlying Event 246A “Type 2” Example “Type 2” Situations: Document and Other Evidence Both

Permitted 247 4. Best Evidence Rule: Definitions and Exceptions 247

xiv

Contents

a. Definitions 247Writings, Recordings, or Photographs 247Originals and Duplicates 248Inscriptions on Objects Are Not Writings 248

b. Exceptions 248FRE 1004: Originals Unavailable 248FRE 1006: Voluminous Originals 249FRE 1007: Opposing Party Description of Contents 250

5. Best Evidence Rule: Practical Applications 250Objecting to “Other Evidence” Under the BER 250Facts About the Document Are Not “Other Evidence of Its Contents” 250

6. Explanation of FRE 1008 251Key Points 252Problems 252

7. The Best Evidence Rule: Policies and Problems 254Seiler v. Lucasfilm, LTD. 254Notes and Questions 256Assessments 257

CHAPTER FIVE

THE CHARACTER, PROPENSITY, AND SPECIFIC ACTS RULES 261

A. The Relevance of Character Evidence to Prove Conduct on a Particular Occasion 261

B. General Prohibition on Use of Character and “Crime, Wrong, or Other Act” Evidence 264 1. FRE 404 264 2. Explanation of FRE 404(a) and (b) 265

a. The Rationale for Restricting Evidence of a Person’s Character 266Weakness of the Propensity Inference 266Low Probative Value of the Evidence to Prove Character 267Diversion from Main Issues 267“Bad Person” Prejudice 267

b. Exceptions to the FRE 404(b) Prohibition Against the Use of Specific Acts 268Key Points 269Problems 269

C. The Admissibility of Specific Acts that Are Deemed Relevant Without a Character Inference 270 1. Explanation of FRE 404(b)(2) 271

a. Types of 404(b)(2) Evidence 272Evidence of Motive, Opportunity, Preparation, or Plan 272Evidence Showing Relevant States of Mind 273Evidence Showing Identity 273

xv

Contents

b. Preliminary Factfinding with Respect to Whether the Person in Question Committed the Act 273

c. Probative Value and Prejudice Generally 274Key Points 275Problems 275

2. Difficulties Distinguishing FRE 404(b)(2) Evidence from Prohibited Character Evidence 277a. The Problem of “Res Gestae” 277b. The Problem of Specific Acts Evidence to Prove Intent or

Knowledge 278c. The Problem of Specific Acts Evidence to Prove Mental States

That Are Not Disputed 279The Argument for Exclusion 279The Impact of Old Chief 280

d. Past “Accidents” or “Coincidences” and the Anticoincidence Theory 281

e. Modus Operandi and the Character Inference 283Key Points 283

D. An Application of Fre 404(B) and FRE 403 284United States v. Varoudakis 284Notes and Questions 291Problems 292

E. Habit and Routine Practice 293 1. FRE 406 293 2. Explanation of FRE 406 293

a. The Importance of Habit and Routine Practice Evidence 294b. Methods of Proving Habit and Routine Practice 294c. The Distinction Between Habit and Character 295d. The Rationale for Permitting Habit and Routine Practice

Evidence 296e. Strategies for Distinguishing Between Habit and Character 296f. Judicial Factfinding on the Question of Habit 297g. An Application of the Character/Habit Distinction:

Drinking “Habits” 298h. Evidence of Custom or Routine Practice of an Organization 299


F. Similar Happenings 302 1. No Specific Federal Rule for Similar Happenings 303 2. Similar Happenings, Character, and Habit Evidence Compared 303 3. The Admissibility of Similar Happenings Evidence

Depends on FRE 403 304 4. Applications of FRE 403 to Similar Happenings Evidence

in Practice 305

xvi

Contents

5. Similar Happenings Offered to Show an Institutional Policy or Practice 306

6. Evidence of Similar Nonhappenings 306Key Points 307Problems 307

G. Exceptions to the Prohibition on Use Of Character to Prove Conduct on a Particular Occasion 309 1. Explanation of FRE 404(a)(2), (3) 309

a. FRE 404(a)(2)(A) and (B): A Criminal Defendant’s Right to Open the Door to Character Evidence 309

b. FRE 404(a)(2)(A) and (B): The Prosecution’s Right to Respond to a Defendant’s Character Evidence 310

c. FRE 404(a)(2)(C): The Prosecution’s Right to Use Character Evidence to Respond to Defense Attacks on a Homicide Victim’s Conduct 310

d. The FRE 404(a)(2) Requirement of Pertinence 311e. The Rationales for the FRE 404(a)(2) Exceptions 311f. FRE 404(a)(3): The Character of Witnesses 312g. An Application of the Character Rules: People v. Johnson 312

Key Points 315 2. Explanation of 405(a): How Character Is Proven When

the FRE 404(a)(2) and (3) Exceptions Apply 316a. The Prohibition Against Using Specific Acts to Prove Character 317b. The Probative Value of Opinion and Reputation Evidence to

Prove Character 317c. Reputation Evidence versus Opinion Evidence 319


3. The Cross-examination of Character Witnesses 321a. The Relevance of the Specific Acts Inquiries 321b. The Prejudicial Impact of Specific Acts Questions 321c. The Relationship Between the Character Trait and the Specific

Acts Inquiries 322d. The Character Witness’s Likely Knowledge of the Specific Act 322e. The Cross-examiner’s Reasonable Belief That the Act Occurred 323f. Acts, Arrests, and Convictions 324g. The Form of the Questions on Cross-examination 325

4. Limitations on the Use of Character Evidence in Practice 325a. The Inherent Weakness of Good Character Evidence 325b. The Potential Unfairness of FRE 405 326


H. Evidence of A Person’s Character When Character Is an Essential Element of a Claim or Defense 327 1. Explanation of FRE 405(b) 328

xvii

Contents

2. An Application: Reputation versus Character in Defamation Cases 329Key Point 329Problems 329

I. Evidence of Sexual Assault and Child Molestation 330 1. FRE 413-415 331 2. Explanation of FRE 413-415 332

a. The Relationship Between FRE 413-415 and Other Rules of Evidence 332FRE 413-415 and FRE 404 332FRE 413-415 and FRE 403 332FRE 413-415 and Other Rules of Evidence 333

b. FRE 413-415 and Preliminary Factfinding 333c. The Broad Definition of “Offense of Sexual Assault” 334d. The Meaning of “Without Consent” in FRE 413(d)(2) and (3) 335

3. Elaboration of FRE 413-415 335a. The Application of FRE 403 to Previously Inadmissible

Character Evidence 335b. The Underlying Rationale for Rules 413-415 336

Unfair Prejudice 337Probative Value and Recidivism 337A Contextual Assessment of Probative Value 338

c. The Significance of FRE 413-415 to Federal Litigation 339Key Points 339Problems 340

J. Evidence of an Alleged Victim’s Past Sexual Behavior or Disposition in Sex Offense Cases 341 1. FRE 412 342 2. Explanation of FRE 412

a. The Relevance of an Alleged Victim’s Sexual Behavior or Disposition 343

b. The Underlying Propensity Theory 343c. The Scope of FRE 412 344

The Meaning of “Other Sexual Behavior” and “Sexual Predisposition” 344

The Applicability of FRE 412 When the Issue Is the Victim’s Behavior on a Particular Occasion 344

The Applicability of FRE 412 in Other Contexts 345Hostile Work Environment Cases 346The Admissibility of “Other Sexual Behavior” and “Sexual

Predisposition” Evidence in Civil Cases 346The Admissibility of “Other Sexual Behavior” and

“Sexual Predisposition” Evidence in Criminal Cases 347The Notice Requirement 348

3. Elaboration of FRE 412 348

xviii

Contents

a. The Rationale for a Rule Excluding Evidence of Prior Sexual Behavior and Sexual Predisposition 348

b. Two Approaches to the Exclusion of Other Sexual Behavior and Sexual Predisposition Evidence 349

c. Rape Shield Rules and the Defendant’s Right to Testify 350d. FRE 412 and Discovery in Civil Cases 350

Key Points 351Problems 351Assessments 353

CHAPTER SIX

THE OTHER RELEVANCE RULES 357

A. Inadmissible to Prove “Negligence,” “Culpable Conduct,” or “Liability” 357 1. FRE 407 358 2. Explanation of FRE 407 358

a. The Exclusionary Mandate 358The Inference of Negligence or Culpable Conduct 358Activities That May Be Subsequent Remedial Measures 360There Is No Intent or Motive Requirement 360The Effectiveness of the Remedial Action 361The Timing of the Remedial Action 361Remedial Actions Mandated by the Law and

Government Agencies 361b. Permissible Uses of Subsequent-Remedial-Measure Evidence 362c. The “If Disputed” Requirement 362d. The Relationship Between FRE 407 and FRE 403 363

3. Elaboration of FRE 407 363a. The Rationales for FRE 407 363

Low Probative Value 363Countervailing FRE 403 Factors 364Not Discouraging Desirable Conduct 364Not Punishing Desirable Conduct 364

b. Subsequent Remedial Measures by Third Persons 365Key Points 365Problems 365


a. The Exclusionary Mandate; Permissible Uses; FRE 403 367b. Conduct or Statements Made During Negotiations 368c. The “Disputed Claim” Requirement 368d. The Applicability of FRE 408 to Criminal Cases 369e. A Party’s Own Offer of Compromise 370f. Compromises and Offers of Compromises by Third Persons 370

5. FRE 409 371

xix

Contents

6. Explanation of FRE 409 371a. The Exclusionary Mandate 371b. The Admissibility of Statements Made in Conjunction with

Medical and Similar Payments 371c. FRE 409 Permits Evidence of Payment for Purposes Other

Than to Show Liability 372d. What Constitutes a “Similar” Expense? 372


a. The Exclusionary Mandate 372b. The Permissible Uses of Evidence of Liability Insurance 373


B. Reflection Rules 407–409, 411 376C. Withdrawn Guilty Pleas, Pleas of No Contest, and Statements Made

During Plea Discussions 377 1. FRE 410 377 2. Explanation of FRE 410 377

a. Withdrawn Guilty Pleas 377b. Pleas of No Contest 378c. Statements Made in Conjunction with the Process of

Making and Negotiating Pleas 378d. The Scope of FRE 410(a)(4) 379e. The FRE 410(b) Exceptions 379f. Waiver of FRE 410’s Exclusionary Mandate 380

Key Points 381Problems 381Assessments 382

CHAPTER SEVEN

THE IMPEACHMENT AND REHABILITATION OF WITNESSES 385

A. Basic Concepts 385 1. Impeachment: The Inferential Process 385

a. The Testimonial Inferences 385b. Types of Impeachment Evidence 387c. Impeachment Evidence versus Substantive Evidence 388

2. Extrinsic Evidence and Impeachment 389 3. Rehabilitating versus “Bolstering” Evidence 390

B. Impeachment and Rehabilitation with Character Evidence 390 1. FRE 608 391 2. Explanation of FRE 608(a) 391

a. Reputation and Opinion Evidence to Prove Character for Untruthfulness 391

xx

Contents

b. The FRE 608(a) Limitation on Evidence of Good Character for Truthfulness 392Key Points 393Problems 393

3. Explanation of FRE 608(b) 394a. The Prohibition Against the Use of Extrinsic Evidence 395b. The Limited Scope of Permissible Inquiry 395c. No Fifth Amendment Waiver 396d The Scope of FRE 608(b)(1): Questioning Witnesses

About Their Own Specific Acts 396The Meaning of Untruthfulness 396Questions About Arrests, Charges, and Administrative

or Judicial Findings 396e. Questions About Specific Acts and FRE 403 397f. Good-Faith Requirement; Practical Considerations 398g. Specific Acts Showing Good Character for Truthfulness 399h. “Cross-Examination” 399i. The Scope of FRE 608(b)(2): Questioning Character

Witnesses Regarding Specific Acts of the Witnesses They Testify About 399Key Points 400Problems 401

4. FRE 609 402 5. Explanation of FRE 609(a) and (b) 403

a. The Two FRE 609(a)(1) Balancing Tests 403Probative Value 404Unfair Prejudice 404The Reverse FRE 403 Balancing Test for Criminal Defendants 405The FRE 403 Balancing Test for Other Witnesses 405The Factual Circumstances of the Crime 405

b. The Automatic Admissibility of FRE 609(a)(2) “Dishonest Act or False Statement” Convictions 406The Rule 406The Meaning of “Dishonest Act or False Statement” 406The Significance of the Underlying Details of the Crime 407

c. The FRE 609(b) Reverse Balancing Test 407 6. Elaboration of FRE 609(a) Impeachment: Policy and Practical

Consideration 408a. The Rationale for FRE 609(a)(1) 408b. Prior Convictions and Prejudice 409c. Extrinsic Evidence 409d. The Factual Details of the Conviction 410e. The Relationship Between FRE 609(a) and FRE 608(b) 410f. Hearsay 411g. Practical Considerations 411

xxi

Contents


C. Impeachment and Rehabilitation with a Witness’s Prior Statements 415 1. FRE 613 416 2. Explanation of FRE 613 416

a. FRE 613(a) 417b. FRE 613(b) 417c. FRE 613(b)’s Departure from the Common Law 418d. Extrinsic Evidence in Practice: Practical Considerations 418e. Probative Value and FRE 403 Concerns 419

The Risk of Improper “Substantive” Use 419Loss of Memory and Inconsistency 420Inconsistent Statements About Collateral Matters 420

3. Prior Consistent Statements 421Key Points 421Problems 422

D. Other Impeachment Techniques 425 1. Bias 425

a. Relevance 425b. Extrinsic Evidence 426c. Possible FRE 403 Limitations on Extrinsic Evidence of Bias 426d. Bias Versus Character 427


2. Mental or Sensory Incapacity 429a. Relevance 429b. Extrinsic Evidence 430c. Mental Incapacity as a Bar to Testimony 430

Keys Points 430Problems 430

3. Contradiction 431a. Relevance 431b. Extrinsic Evidence 432c. The Impeachment of Experts with Statements in Treatises 432d. The “No Extrinsic Evidence to Impeach on a Collateral

Matter” Doctrine 433What Is Not Collateral Generally 433Evidence That Is Directly Relevant to the Issues in Litigation 433Evidence That Impeaches a Witness Apart from Contradiction 433Evidence That Logically Undermines a Witness’s Story 434A Test for “Collateralness” 434Key Points 435Problems 435

E. Reflection on the Impeachment Process 436Assessments 437

xxii

Contents

CHAPTER EIGHT

THE HEARSAY RULE 441

A. The general Rule of Exclusion and the Definition of Hearsay 441 1. FRE 801 and 802 442 2. Explanation of FRE 801 and 802 443

a. The Relevancy of Sally’s Testimony Depends on Generalizations About Sally’s Testimonial Qualities 443

b. The Relevancy of Sally’s Hearsay Statement Also Depends on Generalizations About Sally’s Testimonial Qualities 445

c. Hearsay Policy Differentiates Between Witnesses and Hearsay Declarants 447Key Points 449Problems 450

3. Elaboration of FRE 801 and 802: Implications of the General Rule of Exclusion 450a. Identifying What a Hearsay Statement Is Offered to Prove 450b. Testimony by Witnesses About Their Own Out-of-Court

Statements May Still Be Hearsay 452c. Hearsay, Lay Opinions, and the Firsthand Knowledge Rule 452d. Multiple Hearsay 453


4. Explanation of FRE 801(c): Nonhearsay Statements with No Hearsay Dangers 454a. Nonhearsay Uses 454

Effect on the Listener 456Legally Operative Facts 457Credibility-related Statements 458Identifying Nonhearsay Uses 458

b. Statements Relevant for Both Nonhearsay and Hearsay Uses 459Key Point 459Problems 460

5. Explanation of FRE 801(a)(2): Nonverbal Conduct 462a. The Relevancy of Nonverbal Conduct to Prove Belief 462b. Application of FRE 801(a) 463

Assertive Conduct 463Nonassertive Conduct 463FRE 801(a)’s Intent Test 464

6. Elaboration of FRE 801(a): Justification for the Distinction Between Assertive and Nonassertive Conduct 465a. Absence of Hearsay Danger 465b. Necessity 466c. Should Nonassertive Conduct Be Excluded from the

Definition of Hearsay? 467

xxiii

Contents

The Difficulty of Applying the Intent Test 467The Danger of Ambiguity 467Is the Admission of Nonassertive Conduct Good Policy? 467

d. Disguised Assertions 468Key Points 469Problems 469

7. Utterances Relevant for the Truth of the Declarant’s Unstated Beliefs 471a. The Relevancy of Unstated Beliefs 471b. Application of FRE 801(a) and (c) 473

The Literal Approach 473The Common Law Approach 474FRE 801(a)-(c) Rejects the Common Law Approach 474

8. Elaboration of FRE 801: Courts Reject the Literal Approach and Apply an “Intent” Test 475a. The Judicially Created Intent Test 476b. The Difficulties of Applying an Intent Test 477c. Some Courts Still Adhere to the Common Law Approach 478

Key Points 479Notes and Questions 479Problems 480

9. Reflection on the Definition of Hearsay: Should FRE 801 Be Revised? 481

B. A General Approach to the Admission of Hearsay Under the Exemptions and Exceptions 483 1. Justification for the Exemptions and Exceptions 483 2. The Categorical Approach 483 3. The Process of Admission 484 4. The Foundational Requirements 484 5. Multiple Exemptions and Exceptions May Apply 485 6. FRE 805 485 7. The Confrontation Clause 486

C. Hearsay Exemptions 487 1. FRE 801(d)(1) and (2) 487 2. Explanation of FRE 801(d)(1): The Testifying Declarant

Must Be “Subject to Cross-examination About the Prior Statement” 488a. Preliminary Factfinding 488

The Declarant Is Testifying at Trial 488Examination Concerning the Statement 488Denial of, or Inability to Remember, the Prior Statement 489Inability to Remember the Underlying Events 489Personal Knowledge Is Required 491

b. Other Justifications for the FRE 801(d)(1) Exemptions 491 3. Explanation of FRE 801(d)(1)(A): Prior Inconsistent Statements 491

a. Preliminary Factfinding 491

xxiv

Contents

Inconsistency 491Inconsistency Due to Evasion 492Under Penalty of Perjury and at a Trial, Hearing, or

Other Proceeding 492b. Justification for the FRE 801(d)(1)(A) Limitations 492c. Prior Inconsistent Statements Not Within FRE 801(d)(1)(A) 493

4. Explanation of FRE 801(d)(1)(B): Prior Consistent Statements 493a. Preliminary Factfinding 493

An Express or Implied Charge of Recent Fabrication or Improper Influence or Motive 494

To “Rebut” the Charge 494b. Justification for the FRE 801(d)(1)(B)(i) Limitation 495c. Beyond Motive: FRE 801(d)(1)(B)(ii) 495d. Limits on Credibility-bolstering Statements Continue to Apply 495

5. Explanation of FRE 801(d)(1)(C): Prior Statements of Identification 496a. Preliminary Factfinding 496

The Statement Identifies a Person as Someone the Declarant Perceived Earlier 496

Identifies a Person 497b. Justifications for the Admissibility of Prior Statements of

Identification 497c. Constitutional Dimension 498


6. Explanation of FRE 801(d)(2): Party Admissions in General 502 7. Explanation of FRE 801(d)(2)(A): A Party’s Own Statements 503

a. Preliminary Factfinding 503b. Individual and Representative Capacity 504c. Admissions, Personal Knowledge, and Lay Opinions 504

8. FRE 801(d)(2)(A): Policies and Practical Applications 505a. The Opportunity to Cross-examine and Explain 505b. Fifth Amendment Concerns 506

9. Further Elaboration of FRE 801(d)(2)(A) 506a. Preliminary Factfinding on the Identity of the Declarant 506b. Admissibility of Party Admissions in Multiparty Cases: The Bruton

Problem 507 10. Explanation of FRE 801(d)(2)(B): Adoptive Admissions 508

a. Preliminary Factfinding 508b. Justification for the Admissibility of Adoptive Admissions 509c. Adoption by Silence 510

11. Explanation of FRE 801(d)(2)(C) and (D): Admissions by Agents, Servants, and Employees 511a. Preliminary Factfinding 511

Statements by Attorneys 512

xxv

Contents

Other Specifically Authorized Statements 512Statements Made During the Relationship on a Matter

Within the Scope of an Agent’s Employment 512b. Justification for the Admissibility of Statements Under

FRE 801(d)(2)(C) and (D): Necessity, Fairness, and Reliability 513c. Personal Knowledge and Lay Opinions 514d. Admissions by Government Employees 515

12. Explanation of FRE 801(d)(2)(E): Co-conspirators’ Admissions 515a. Preliminary Factfinding 515

Proof of Comembership 516During the Course of the Conspiracy 516In Furtherance of the Conspiracy 517

b. Justification for the Admissibility of Co-conspirators’ Admissions 518 13. Elaboration of FRE 801(d)(2)(E): Applying FRE 104 to the

Co-conspirator Exemption 518a. Bourjaily v. United States 518b. The Amendment to FRE 801(d)(2): The Requirement of

Additional Evidence 519c. Process for Admission of a Co-conspirator’s Statement 520


D. Hearsay Exceptions Not Requiring the Unavailability of the Declarant 524 1. FRE 803 525 2. Explanation of FRE 803(1): Present Sense Impressions 528

a. Preliminary Factfinding 529b. Justification for the Admissibility of Present Sense Impressions 529

3. Explanation of FRE 803(2): Excited Utterances 529a. Preliminary Factfinding 530b. Justification for the Admissibility of Excited Utterances 530

4. FRE 803(1) and (2): Effects of the Categorical Approach 531a. The Categories Determine Admissibility 531b. The Categorical Terms Require Judicial Interpretation 532

Time Lapse Between Event and Statement 532Opportunity to Fabricate as an Interpretive Guide 533Scope of the Statement 534

c. Use of the Statement Itself in Preliminary Factfinding 534d. Proof of Personal Knowledge 535e. Criticism of FRE 803(1) and (2) 536


5. Explanation of FRE 803(3): Declarant’s Statement of His Then-Existing State of Mind 538a. Preliminary Factfinding 539b. Exclusion of “Facts Remembered or Believed” 539c. Justification for the State-of-Mind Exception 540

xxvi

Contents

d. State-of-Mind Utterances Are Classified as Either Direct or Circumstantial 541

6. FRE 803(3): Relevant Uses of State-of-Mind Evidence 542a. Future and Past State of Mind of the Declarant 542b. Statements of Intent to Prove the Declarant’s Subsequent Conduct 542c. Distinguishing State of Mind from Past Facts 543d. Statements About the Declarant’s Will 544e. The Hillmon Case: Using the Declarant’s Statement of

Intent to Prove the Conduct of Another 544Walters’s Future Conduct 545Hillmon’s Future Conduct 545Recent Interpretations of Hillmon 546Key Points 547Problems 548

7. Interpretation and Illustration of FRE 803(4): Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment 549a. Preliminary Factfinding 549b. Justification for the Admissibility of Statements for

Medical Purposes 550c. Statements About the Cause or External Source Must Be

“Pertinent” 550d. Requiring Proof of Medical Purpose 551

8. FRE 803(4): Patient’s Statements to Medical Expert Witnesses 552Key Points 552Problems 553

9. Explanation of FRE 803(5): Recorded Recollection 553a. Preliminary Factfinding 554

Non Limits on Contents of the Statement 554The Declarant Must Be a Witness . . . with Incomplete Memory 554Statement Was Made with Personal Knowledge and

Fresh Memory 555The Record Reflects the Witness’s Knowledge Accurately 555FRE 104(a) and 104(b) 556“Read into Evidence” 556

b. Justification for the Admissibility of Recorded Recollections 557c. Recorded Recollections Created by Multiple Declarants 557

10. Refreshing Memory versus Recorded Recollection: FRE 612 558a. Explanation of Refreshing Memory 558b. The Impact of FRE 612 on Refreshing Recollection 560c. Witness Memory Lapses in Practice: The Interplay of Recorded

Recollection and Refreshing Memory 560Key Points 562Problems 562

11. Explanation of FRE 803(6): Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity 563

xxvii

Contents

a. Preliminary Factfinding 564The Broad Scope of 803(6)(B), “Regularly Conducted Activity.” 564FRE 803(6)(C): Making the Record Was a Regular Practice. 565FRE 803(6)(A): Personal Knowledge and Near

Contemporaneity Are Required 566Made Pursuant to a “Business Duty” 567Custodian or Other Qualified Witness 567

b. Justification for the Admissibility of Records of Regularly Conducted Activities 568

12. FRE 803(6): Practical Applications and Problems 569a. Exclusion for Untrustworthiness 569

Burden of Persuasion 570Circumstances Indicating Lack of Trustworthiness 570

b. Opinions and Diagnoses 570c. Records Containing Multiple Levels of Hearsay 571

Sources of Information with No Business Duty 572Use of Multiple Exceptions and Exemptions 573

d. Computer Documents and Electronic Data 573Key Points 574Problems 574

13. Explanation of FRE 803(8): Public Records and Reports 576a. Preliminary Factfinding 577

Activities of the Office 577FRE 803(8)(A)(ii): Matters Observed Under a Legal

Duty to Report FRE 803(8)(A)(iii): Factual Finds in Investigative Reports 578

FRE 803(8)(A)(ii): Exclusion for Criminal Cases 578Exclusion for Lack of Trustworthiness 579Preliminary Factfinding 579

b. Justification for the Admissibility of Public Records 580 14. FRE 803(8)(A)(ii) and (iii) in Practice 580

a. The Meaning of Law Enforcement Personnel 580Prosecutorial Function 581Routine and Regular Activities 582

b. The Relationship Between FRE 803(8)(A)(ii) and (iii) and Other Exceptions 582

15. FRE 803(8): The Problem of Multiple Hearsay Sources Within Investigative Reports 583a. Is the Report Itself Admissible? 583b. Are Otherwise Inadmissible Hearsay Sources Admissible? 584c. Administrative Findings 585

16. Other Exceptions for Records Under FRE 803 585Key Points 586Problems 587

17. Explanation of FRE 803(22): Judgment of Previous Conviction 588

xxviii

Contents

a. Preliminary Factfinding 588b. Justification for the Admissibility of Criminal Judgment 589c. The Admission of Misdemeanor Convictions for Impeachment 589

E. Hearsay Exceptions Requiring the Unavailability of the Declarant 589 1. FRE 804 590 2. Explanation of FRE 804(a): Grounds for a Finding of Unavailability 591

Preliminary Factfinding 592Preference for Former Testimony or Deposition 592Reasonable Means to Procure Attendance 592Unavailability Caused by the Proponent 593Problem 593

3. Explanation of FRE 804(b)(1): Former Testimony 594a. Preliminary Factfinding 594

Trial, Hearing, or Lawful Deposition 594Opportunity and Similar Motive to Develop the Testimony

No Opportunity 594No Requirement of “Offered on Same Issue” 596Opportunity to Develop by Same Party or a Predecessor

in Interest 597b. Justification for the Admissibility of Former Testimony 597

Note 598 4. FRE 804(b)(1): Practical Problems and Applications 598

a. Former Testimony Offered By or Against a Nonparty to the Original Action 598Offered by a Nonparty 598Offered Against a Nonparty (“Predecessor in Interest”) 598“Predecessor in Interest” Analysis 599

b. Lack of Similar Motive Due to Differences in Procedural Context 600c. Using Former Testimony at the Current Proceeding 601

Key Points 602Problem 602

5. Explanation of FRE 804(b)(2): Dying Declarations 603a. Preliminary Factfinding 603b. Justification for the Admissibility of Dying Declarations 604

Key Point 605Problem 605

6. Explanation of FRE 804(b)(3): Declarations Against Interest 605a. Preliminary Factfinding 606

Content Against Interest 606Ascertaining the Declarant’s Knowledge 607Distinct from Party Admission 607

b. Justification for the Admissibility of Declarations Against Interest 607 7. FRE 804(b)(3): Practical Applications and Problems 608

a. Doubts About the Underlying Rationale for the Exception 608Mixed Motive Statements 608

xxix

Contents

Statements Made with No Motive to Lie 609b. Statements That Inculpate Accomplices 609c. Requirement of Corroboration for Inculpatory Statements in

Criminal Cases 610Background to Current Rule 610Ongoing Constitutional Difficulties 611Key Points 612Problems 612

8. Explanation of FRE 804(b)(4): Statements of Personal or Family History 613a. Preliminary Factfinding 613

Personal Knowledge of One’s Own Personal and Family History 613Statements of Relations and Intimate Associates 614Concerning Personal History 614

b. Justification for the Admissibility of Statements of Personal or Family History 614Key Points 614Problems 615

9. Explanation of FRE 804(b)(6): Forfeiture by Wrongdoing 615a. Preliminary Factfinding 616

The Declarant Was a Witness or a Potential Witness Against a Party 616

The Party Engaged in Wrongdoing Procured the Unavailability of the Declarant 616

Intent to Procure the Declarant’s Unavailability as a Witness 616At Which Trial Can the Statement Be Used? 617b. Justification for the Admissibility of Forfeiture by

Wrongdoing Statements 618c. Acquiescence in Wrongdoing 618d. Practical Applications 620

FRE 403 620Is an FRE 104(d) Hearing Required? 620Key Points 621Problems 621

F. The Residual Exception 621 1. FRE 807 622 2. Explanation of FRE 807 622

a. Principles and Policies Underlying the Residual Exception 622Justification 622Limitations on Use of the Exception 623

b. Preliminary Factfinding 623c. FRE 807(a)(1): Circumstantial Guarantees of Trustworthiness 624

Reliability of Testimonial Qualities 624Independent Corroboration 625

d. FRE 807(a)(1) (continued): Equivalence 626

xxx

Contents

e. FRE 807(a)(2)–(4): Preventing Overuse of the Exception 626f. Notice 627

3. FRE 807 in Practice: How Much Hearsay Is Admitted Under the Residual Exception? 628Key Points 629Problems 629

G. Hearsay and the Confrontation Clause 630 1. Ohio v. Roberts 630

a. Firmly Rooted Hearsay Exceptions 631b. Not Firmly Rooted Exceptions Require “Particularized

Guarantees of Trustworthiness” 631 2. Crawford v. Washington 632

Crawford v. Washington 632Key Points 643Problems 644Notes 644

3. The Definition of “Testimonial” Statements After Crawford: Statements Made During Questioning by Police 645a. The “Primary Purpose” Test: Davis v. Washington 646

Davis v. Washington, Hammon v. Indiana 646Key Points 653Problem 653Notes and Questions 653

b. The Primary Purpose Test: Michigan v. Bryant 655Problems 660Notes and Questions 661

4. The Definition of “Testimonial” Statements After Crawford: Government Forensic Reports 661a. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts 662

Notes 665b. Bullcoming v. New Mexico 666

Problem 667Notes 669

c. Williams v. Illinois 669The Plurality Opinion in Williams 670Justice Thomas’s Concurrence in the Judgment 671Justice Kagan’s Dissent 672Notes 673

5. The Definition of “Testimonial” Statements After Crawford: Statements Not Made to Law Enforcement 673a. Child Statements: Ohio v. Clark 674

Notes 675b. Medical Interviews and Examinations 676c. Other Types of Nontestimonial Hearsay 676

6. Testimonial Statements That Satisfy the Confrontation Right 677

xxxi

Contents

a. The Declarant Testifies 677b. Unavailability and Prior Opportunity for Cross-examination 678

Unavailability 678Prior Opportunity for Cross-examination 678

7. Exceptions to the Requirement of Confrontation 678a. Dying Declarations 679b. Forfeiture by Wrongdoing 679

The Majority Opinion in Giles 680The Concurring Opinion of Justices Souter and Ginsburg 681The Dissenting Opinion in Giles 681Notes and Questions 682

H. REFLECTION ON THE HEARSAY RULE 682 1. The Traditional Goals of Hearsay Policy 682 2. The Reliability Theory Does Not Work 683 3. A Rule of Discretion 684 4. Abolition 685 5. Reformulating Hearsay Policy 685

a. Is There a Need for a Hearsay Rule in Modern Civil Litigation? 685b. Regulation Premised on the Excesses of the Adversary System 686c. Notice-based Admission in Civil Cases: Reliance on the

Adversary System 686d. Why Hearsay Should Be Treated Differently in Criminal Cases 687

6. A Rebuttal 687 7. Conclusion 688

Assessments 689

CHAPTER NINE

LAY OPINIONS AND EXPERT WITNESSES 699

A. Lay Opinions 699 1. FRE 701 699 2. Explanation of FRE 701 700

Rationally Based on Perception 700Helpful to the Trier of Fact 700Not based on expert knowledge 700

3. FRE 701: Practical Applications 700a. Recognizing Opinions 701

Estimates 701Summaries 701Inferences 702A Fourth Category: Subjective Feelings or Judgments

Are Not FRE 701 Opinions 702b. Fact Versus Opinion 702c. Rationally Based on the Perception of the Witness 703

Hidden Hearsay 703

xxxii

Contents

Speculation 703Unfounded Inferences or Overgeneralizations 703

d. Helpful to the Trier of Fact 704Availability of More Detailed Facts 704Proximity to a Disputed Issue 704

e. Not Based on Specialized Knowledge 705f. Opinion Testimony: Practice Pointers 706

Objecting to Lay Opinion Testimony 706Foundation for Lay Opinion 706Lay Opinion on Questions of Law 706Key Points 707Problems 707

B. Admissibility of Expert Testimony 708 1. FRE 702 709 2. Explanation of FRE 702(a) 710

a. Scientific, Technical, or Other Specialized Knowledge 710b. Help the Trier of Fact 710

Knowledge Is Relative to the Factfinder 710Fact in Issue Cannot Be Determined by Common Knowledge 711Expert Testimony Sheds Light on Facts in Issue 711Helpfulness Requirement as a Limitation on Experts

Usurping Jury’s Function 711c. A Witness Qualified as an Expert 712d. Burden of Proof 712

3. Explanation of FRE 702(b)-(d) 712 4. Development of the FRE 702 Reliability Requirement:

Daubert and Its Progeny 713a. The Frye Test 713b. Daubert 714

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 714Notes and Questions 720

c. Joiner 722General Electric Co. v. Joiner 722Notes and Questions 724

d. Kumho Tire 725Kumho Tire Company, LTD. v. Carmichael 725Notes and Questions 731

5. The 2000 Amendments to FRE 702 732Daubert Not Codified in Rule 702 732Other Factors Relevant 733Daubert Did Not Raise the Bar for Admitting Expert Testimony 734Contradictory Expert Testimony Not Per Se Unreliable 734Reliability Inquiry May Extend to Conclusions 734Reliability Inquiry Applies to All Expert Testimony 734Demonstrating Reliability of Nonscientific Expert Testimony 735

xxxiii

Contents

The Rule Does Not Forbid Hypothetical Opinions 735Courts May Not Resolve Underlying Factual Disputes in

Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Testimony 736Key Points 736Problems 736

C. Factual Basis for Expert Opinion 738 1. FRE 703 738 2. Explanation of FRE 703 738

“Made aware of or personally observed.” 738“Reasonably rely on.” 739Reverse 403 Test for Inadmissible Facts. 740

3. FRE 703: Policies, Problems, and Applications 740a. Historical Background 740b. The Jury’s Use of Inadmissible Facts Underlying Expert Opinion

(Inadmissible “Basis Evidence”) 741FRE 703’s Restrictive Approach to Inadmissible Basis Evidence 741Limited Use of Otherwise Inadmissible Basis Evidence 742The Limiting Instruction Problem 742FRE 703’s Compromise Solution 744FRE 703 Basis Evidence and the Confrontation Clause 744


“And give the reasons for it.” 746Facts and Data Must Be Presented to the Judge 746

6. FRE 705: Practical Applications 747Key Points 748Problems 748

D. Opinions on an Ultimate Issue 749 1. FRE 704 749 2. Explanation of FRE 704(a) 749 3. FRE 704: Policy, Problems, and Applications 750

FRE 704(a) 750FRE 704(b) 751What Is an Ultimate Issue? 751FRE 704(b) Policies and Problems 752Key Points 754Problems 754

E. FRE 702–705: Practical Applications 755 1. Defining the Scope of Expertise 755 2. Types of Expert Opinions 756

Generalizations Versus Case-specific Assertions 756Ultimate and Subsidiary Opinions 757Opinions on Questions of Law3. Types of Experts 758a. Retained Versus Percipient Experts 758

Disclosure in Civil Cases 758

xxxiv

Contents

Disclosure in Criminal Cases 759Qualifying Experts “On the Fly” 760

b. Consultants Versus Testifying Experts 761 4. Working with Experts 762

When Do You Need an Expert Witness? 762Finding Subject Matter Experts 763

5. Direct and Cross Examination of Experts 764Direct Examination 764Cross-examination 765Key Points 766Problems 767

F. Reflections on Expert Testimony 767 1. Data on the Use of Experts in Litigation 767

Samuel Gross, Expert Evidence 768Carol Krafka et al., Judge and Attorney Experiences, Practices,

and Concerns Regarding Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials 769 2. Scientific Evidence and the Daubert Case 770

a. Introduction 770b. Three Models of Expert Testimony 772

The Normal, Educational Approach 772The Deference Model 773The Adversary Model 773

3. Court Appointed Experts 775a. FRE 706 775b. Is FRE 706 Underutilized? 776

4. Summary Witnesses 778 5. Problems in Forensic Science: Overview 778

The National Academies, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward 779

6. Problems in Forensic Science: Some Specific Controversies 783a. Recent Debates in DNA Testing 783b. Psychological and Behavioral Sciences 784c. Toxic Tort Causation 785d. Traditional Law Enforcement Investigative Tools 787

Handwriting Identification 787Fingerprint Identification 788Compositional Analysis of Bullet Lead 792Eyewitness Identifications 793Question 794

6. A Law and Economics Perspective on Experts 795Richard A. Posner, The Law and Economics of the Economic

Expert Witness 795Assessments 797

xxxv

Contents

CHAPTER TEN

THE PROCESS OF PROOF IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES: Burdens of Proof, Judicial Summary and Comment, and Presumptions 803

A. The Process of Proof in Civil Cases 804 1. The Burdens of Proof in Civil Cases 804

a. The Burden of Production 804The Role of and Rationale for Production Burdens 804The Relationship Between Production Burdens and

Persuasion Burdens 805The Relationship Between the Two Burdens Illustrated 805Procedural Mechanisms for Enforcing Burdens of Production 807The Allocation of Burdens of Production 808Key Points 808

b. The Burden of Persuasion 809Burdens of Persuasion Are Decision Rules That Manage

Uncertainty 809The Premises Underlying the Preponderance Rule 809Higher Burdens of Persuasion 811The Meaning of “Preponderance of the Evidence” in Practice 812The Relative Nature of the Burden of Persuasion 813The Allocation of the Burden of Persuasion 813Schechter v. Klanfer 813Notes and Questions 815Key Points 815

2. Judicial Summary and Comment in Civil Cases 817a. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Permitting Judicial

Summary and Content 817b. The Criteria for Evaluating Judicial Summary and Content 819c. Standardized Comments 820d. The Relationship Between Comments on the Evidence and

the Burden of Persuasion 820Key Points 821Notes and Questions 821

3. Presumptions in Civil Cases 822a. Irrebuttable or Conclusive Presumptions 823


b. Mandatory Rebuttable Presumptions 824Mandatory Rebuttable Presumptions That Shift a Burden

of Production 824Notes and Questions 826Key Points 826

xxxvi

Contents

Mandatory Rebuttable Presumptions That Shift the Burden of Persuasion 826

Notes and Questions 827Key Points 827Decisionmaking with Respect to the Facts Giving Rise

to Mandatory Presumptions 828Key Point 828Problems 828

c. Permissive or “Weak” Presumptions 829Key Points 830Notes and Questions 830

d. The Federal Rules Approach to Presumptions 834The “Federal Statute” Exception 834The Relationship Between FRE 301 Presumptions and

Other Means of Allocating Burdens of Proof 835Key Points 835

B. The Process of Proof in Criminal Cases 835 1. The Burdens of Proof in Criminal Cases 836

a. The Burden of Persuasion: In re Winship’s Mandate of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt 836Notes and Questions 837Key Point 839

b. The Scope of Winship: Explicit Shifts in the Burden of Persuasion and Other Matters 839The Mullaney Decision 840The Patterson Decision 842The Functional Equivalence of Mullaney and Patterson 842Evaluating Mullaney and Patterson: The Theory That the

Greater Includes the Lesser 842Giving Content to Winship: Tests for Assessing the Validity of

Affirmative Defenses 843(1) The Elements Test 843(2) Federalism and the Political Compromise Test 844(3) The Proportionality Test 845(4) Justice Powell’s Two-Part Test 846

Affirmative Defenses After Patterson 846Singling Out Excusatory Defenses 846Martin v. Ohio 846Notes and Questions on Martin 849Key Points 851Notes and Questions on the Application of Winship in

Other Contexts 851c. The Burden of Production in Criminal Cases 854

Notes and Questions 855Key Points 855

xxxvii

Contents

2. Judicial Summary and Comment on the Evidence in Criminal Cases 856Notes and Questions 856

3. Presumptions in Criminal Cases: The Impact of Winship 857Notes and Questions 859Key Points 859Problems 860Assessments 862

CHAPTER ELEVEN

JUDICIAL NOTICE 865

A. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts 865 1. FRE 201 865 2. Explanation of FRE 201(a) and (b) 866

a. Types of Adjudicative Facts That Are Frequently Noticed 866b. The Scope of FRE 201(a): What Are Adjudicative Facts? 867c. The Scope of FRE 201(b): The Required State of Knowledge of

Adjudicative Facts That May Be Judicially Noticed 867 3. An Application of FRE 201(a) and (b) 868

In re Thirtyacre 868Notes and Questions 870

4. Explanation of FRE 201(c) and (e) 870 5. Explanation of FRE 201(d) and (f) 871

a. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts in Civil Cases: Mini Directed Verdicts 871

b. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts in Criminal Cases: Judicial Comments 871

c. Timing of Judicial Notice 872Judicial Notice to Preserve Civil Verdicts 872Judicial Notice to Preserve Criminal Verdicts 873Key Points 873Notes and Questions 873Problems 874

B. Judicial Notice as Part of Judicial Decisionmaking 875 1. Judicial Cognizance of Common Knowledge Without Formal Judicial

Notice 876a. The Jury’s General Background Knowledge 876b. Judges’ Own Background Knowledge 877

In re Marriage of Tresnak 878Notes and Questions 879

2. Judicial Cognizance of Legislative Facts 880Notes and Questions 881

3. Judicial Notice of Substantive Law 882Key Point 882Problems 882Assessments 884

xxxviii

Contents

CHAPTER TWELVE

PRIVILEGES 887

A. The Law of Privilege 887 1. A General Introduction 889 2. The Unique Operation of Privilege Rules 889 3. Historical Background and Current Status of Privilege Rules 890

B. General Structure of Privileges 893 1. Holder of the Privilege 893 2. Invocation 894 3. Scope and Limits 896 4. Waiver 896 5. Exceptions 898 6. Drawing Adverse Inferences from Invoking a Privilege 898 7. Constitutional Limitations on Privileges 899

C. The Attorney-Client Privilege 899 1. Elements of the Privilege 899

a. Communications with a Lawyer or Representative of a Lawyer 901b. Communications for the Purpose of Legal Service 903c. The Scope of Confidential Communications Included in Privilege 904d. Limitations on Waiver of the Privilege 905e. Explanation of FRE 502 906f. Applying FRE 502: Practical Issues 907

Scope of the Waiver Under FRE 502(a) and Subject Matter Waiver 907

When Does a Inadvertent Disclosure Waive Protection Under FRE 502(b)? 908

If Disclosure Is Made in a State Proceeding, the More Protective Law Will Apply Under FRE 502(c) 909

Controlling Effect of a Court Order Under FRE 502(d) 909Controlling Effect of a Party Agreement Under FRE 502(e) 910Controlling Effect of FRE 502 910

g. Potential Problems with FRE 502 910The Rule Does Not Eliminate the Need to Review

Documents Prior to Disclosure 910The Constitutionality of the Rule’s Application to State

Court Proceedings 911The Rule May Not Significantly Reduce the Cost of Discovery 911The Rule May Jeopardize the Attorney-Client Privilege 911Key Points 912Notes and Questions 912Problems 913Note on the Attorney-Client Privilege, the Work-Product

Doctrine, and the Ethical Duty of Confidentiality 914Notes and Questions 917

xxxix

Contents

Problems 918 2. The Corporate Client 919

Upjohn Co. v. United States 920Key Points 929Notes and Questions 929Problems 931

3. The Government Client 932 4. Exceptions to the Privilege 934

a. Breach of Duty by a Lawyer or Client 934b. Document Attested by a Lawyer 934c. Identity of Client, Fee Information, and Related Matters 934d. Communication in Furtherance of a Crime or Fraud 935

Problems 937 5. Reflection on the Attorney-Client Privilege 938

Ronald J. Allen et al., A Positive Theory of the Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work Product Doctrine 938

Notes and Questions 953D. The Marital Privileges 956

1. The Marital Communication Privilege 956a. Elements of the Privilege and Its Justifications 956b. Holder 957c. Scope of the Privilege 957

Valid Marriage 957Confidentiality 958What Is a “Communication”? 959

d. Exceptions 959Problems 960

2. The Marital Testimonial Privilege 961a. Elements of the Privilege and Its Justifications 961

Trammel v. United States 962Notes and Questions 966

b. Exceptions 968Key Points 969Problems 969

E. The Physician-Patient and Psychotherapist- Patient Privileges 970 1. The Physician-Patient Privilege 970 2. The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege 972

a. Jaffee v. Redmond 972Jaffee v. Redmond 972Notes and Questions 984

b. Scope of the Privilege After Jaffee 984Who Is a Psychotherapist? 984Communications 985Waiver 986

c. Exceptions to the Privilege 987

xl

Contents

Constitutional Limits 987Compelled Disclosures 988Dangerous Patient 988Crime-Fraud Exception 989Key Points 990Problems 990

F. The Clergy-Communicant Privilege 991 1. The Privilege and Its Justifications 992 2. Scope of the Privilege 993

a. Definition of Clergy 993b. Nature of the Communication 994c. Expectation of Confidentiality 994d. Exceptions 996


G. Other Privileges 998 1. Other Professional-Client Relationships 998 2. Parent-Child Privilege 999 3. Communications Made in Settlement Negotiations 1001 4. Privileges Protecting Outside Sources of Information 1002

a. Government Informant’s Privilege 1003b. Journalist’s Privilege 1003c. Scholar’s (Academic Researcher’s) Privilege 1005

5. Peer Review Privilege 1006 6. Self-evaluative Privilege 1007 7. Government Privileges—Executive Privilege 1009

a. State Secrets Privilege 1009b. Presidential Communications Privilege 1012c. Official Information (Deliberative Process) Privilege 1014

8. Miscellaneous Privileges 1017Problems 1018Assessments 1020

Table of Cases 000Table of Authorities 000Index 000

xli