# Law Class - Evidence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql3hAXvmvcU
Translation: vi

[00:06] All right, we're ready to go.
  Được rồi, chúng ta sẵn sàng bắt đầu.

[00:10] Yes, I need a yes.
  Vâng, tôi cần một cái vâng.

[00:13] Is there a motion to begin?
  Có đề xuất nào để bắt đầu không?

[00:13] Jake, how you doing in Zoom land?
  Jake, bạn thế nào trong thế giới Zoom?

[00:19] I'm good up here.
  Tôi ổn ở đây.

[00:19] Oh, you sound good.
  Ồ, bạn nghe có vẻ tốt.

[00:23] You got a good microphone, let's use it today.
  Bạn có một chiếc micro tốt, hãy sử dụng nó hôm nay.

[00:34] All right, let's see. We got a lot to talk.
  Được rồi, hãy xem nào. Chúng ta có nhiều điều để nói.

[00:36] All right, let's see. We got a lot to talk about today, as always.
  Được rồi, hãy xem nào. Chúng ta có nhiều điều để nói hôm nay, như mọi khi.

[00:39] But I'm going to try to end a few minutes early.
  Nhưng tôi sẽ cố gắng kết thúc sớm hơn vài phút.

[00:41] I'll tell you why as we go along.
  Tôi sẽ cho bạn biết lý do khi chúng ta tiếp tục.

[00:44] I'll tell you about an interesting thing that's coming up.
  Tôi sẽ cho bạn biết về một điều thú vị sắp tới.

[00:48] You know, speakers, things like that.
  Bạn biết đấy, diễn giả, những thứ tương tự.

[00:50] There's a year-long series that you may have, hopefully you have heard of, called Activism and Black Life.
  Có một chuỗi sự kiện kéo dài cả năm mà bạn có thể, hy vọng bạn đã nghe nói, gọi là Chủ nghĩa hoạt động và Cuộc sống Da đen.

[00:55] Sponsored by the Africana Studies, Africana Studies program.
  Được tài trợ bởi Chương trình Nghiên cứu về Châu Phi, Nghiên cứu về Châu Phi.

[00:59] Speakers, roundtables, lectures, panels, debates, screenings, listening sessions, all kinds of stuff.
  Diễn giả, hội thảo, bài giảng, tọa đàm, tranh luận, chiếu phim, các buổi lắng nghe, đủ loại thứ.

[01:07] the africana studies program is an interdisciplinary program with people from history and the law school and religion and all kinds of other departments.
  Chương trình nghiên cứu về người Mỹ gốc Phi là một chương trình liên ngành với những người từ lịch sử, trường luật, tôn giáo và tất cả các khoa khác.

[01:17] but today is the kickoff event it's at six o'clock.
  Nhưng hôm nay là sự kiện khai mạc, diễn ra lúc sáu giờ.

[01:20] uh it is called activism in the black imagination.
  Ờ, nó được gọi là Chủ nghĩa hoạt động trong trí tưởng tượng của người da đen.

[01:24] an africana studies faculty roundtable.
  Một buổi tọa đàm của khoa nghiên cứu về người Mỹ gốc Phi.

[01:27] that will be at six o'clock on zoom.
  Buổi đó sẽ diễn ra lúc sáu giờ trên Zoom.

[01:28] obviously.
  Rõ ràng.

[01:30] featuring professors mohammed kamara alicia cowan's michael hill moderated by joanna bond from the law school.
  Với sự tham gia của các giáo sư Mohammed Kamara, Alicia Cowan, Michael Hill, được điều phối bởi Joanna Bond từ trường luật.

[01:36] my wife but i would encourage you to go to that.
  Vợ tôi, nhưng tôi khuyến khích bạn tham dự buổi đó.

[01:41] to today right after class and sort of pay attention to what's coming up.
  Đến hôm nay, ngay sau giờ học và hãy chú ý đến những gì sắp diễn ra.

[01:44] they've got a lot of good screenings and speakers and stuff like that.
  Họ có nhiều buổi chiếu phim và diễn giả hay, và những thứ tương tự.

[01:51] okay so that's today let's turn this off.
  Được rồi, đó là hôm nay, chúng ta hãy tắt cái này đi.

[01:53] because we don't use our phones in class.
  Vì chúng ta không sử dụng điện thoại trong lớp.

[01:55] do we right okay so what are we talking about.
  Chúng ta có không, đúng không? Được rồi, vậy chúng ta đang nói về cái gì.

[01:59] where are we.
  Chúng ta đang ở đâu.

[02:00] we've talked about rule 401 we've talked generally first about general principles of relevance.
  Chúng ta đã nói về quy tắc 401, chúng ta đã nói chung trước về các nguyên tắc chung về sự liên quan.

[02:07] but we're tying ourselves to the text of these rules especially at the beginning when we're talking about how do we determine what's relevant evidence is what's going to be admissible.
  nhưng chúng ta đang tự trói buộc mình vào văn bản của những quy tắc này, đặc biệt là lúc ban đầu, khi chúng ta nói về việc làm thế nào để xác định điều gì là bằng chứng liên quan, điều gì sẽ được chấp nhận.

[02:16] so let's remember our little road map that we've talked about.
  vì vậy, hãy nhớ lại bản đồ đường đi nhỏ của chúng ta mà chúng ta đã nói đến.

[02:20] poor poor rule 402 gets forgotten about.
  quy tắc 402 tội nghiệp, tội nghiệp bị lãng quên.

[02:23] so let's just maybe for the last time remember what rule 402 says.
  vì vậy, có lẽ lần cuối cùng chúng ta hãy nhớ lại quy tắc 402 nói gì.

[02:28] relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise the u.s constitution federal statute etc.
  bằng chứng liên quan được chấp nhận trừ khi bất kỳ điều nào sau đây quy định khác đi, hiến pháp Hoa Kỳ, luật liên bang, v.v.

[02:37] and irrelevant evidence is not admissible all right.
  và bằng chứng không liên quan thì không được chấp nhận, được rồi.

[02:41] now 402 gets forgotten because that's so obvious right obviously relevant evidence is presumed admissible.
  bây giờ quy tắc 402 bị lãng quên vì điều đó quá rõ ràng, phải không, rõ ràng là bằng chứng liên quan được coi là có thể chấp nhận được.

[02:47] irrelevant evidence is presumed inadmissible or is inadmissible.
  bằng chứng không liên quan được coi là không thể chấp nhận được hoặc là không thể chấp nhận được.

[02:52] not presumed it is if it's irrelevant it's inadmissible.
  không phải là giả định, nó là, nếu nó không liên quan, nó không thể chấp nhận được.

[02:55] that's obvious what's interesting is that unless any of the following provides otherwise relevant evidence is presumed admissible.
  điều đó rõ ràng, điều thú vị là trừ khi bất kỳ điều nào sau đây quy định khác đi, bằng chứng liên quan được coi là có thể chấp nhận được.

[03:05] unless anything okay that's the last we're going to say about 402 pretty much.
  trừ khi có bất cứ điều gì, được rồi, đó là điều cuối cùng chúng ta sẽ nói về quy tắc 402, gần như vậy.

[03:09] 401 gets all the action okay.
  401 nhận được tất cả hành động, được rồi.

[03:12] Because it tells you what relevance is.
  Bởi vì nó cho bạn biết sự liên quan là gì.

[03:14] Now we've talked about this.
  Bây giờ chúng ta đã nói về điều này.

[03:15] We talked about this last Friday.
  Chúng ta đã nói về điều này vào thứ Sáu tuần trước.

[03:18] There's legal relevance, Jake, you with me?
  Có sự liên quan pháp lý, Jake, bạn có theo kịp tôi không?

[03:26] Yes, yeah, right, right, okay.
  Vâng, vâng, đúng, đúng, được rồi.

[03:31] A good way to buy yourself some time there, Jake.
  Một cách hay để câu giờ cho bản thân ở đó, Jake.

[03:35] Legal relevance is made up of two components.
  Sự liên quan pháp lý bao gồm hai thành phần.

[03:37] What are they?
  Chúng là gì?

[03:44] Um.
  Ừm.

[03:50] Probability you're going to get that confused when we talk about people versus Collins.
  Xác suất bạn sẽ nhầm lẫn điều đó khi chúng ta nói về con người so với Collins.

[03:56] Probative value or let's talk like normal people and say logical relevance, okay?
  Giá trị chứng cứ hoặc hãy nói như người bình thường và nói sự liên quan logic, được không?

[04:03] So legal relevance is made up of two parts.
  Vì vậy, sự liên quan pháp lý bao gồm hai phần.

[04:05] Logical relevance and materiality, okay?
  Sự liên quan logic và tính trọng yếu, được không?

[04:07] This is all review.
  Đây là tất cả ôn tập.

[04:10] right that's why jake knocked it out of the park there.
  Đúng vậy, đó là lý do tại sao Jake đã làm rất tốt ở đó.

[04:14] it's got to be material it's got a matter to something that's necessary to be determined in the action.
  Nó phải có tính vật chất, nó phải là vấn đề cần thiết để được xác định trong hành động.

[04:19] and it's got to be logically relevant or probative.
  Và nó phải có liên quan logic hoặc có tính chứng minh.

[04:23] which is to say it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
  Nói cách khác, nó có bất kỳ xu hướng nào làm cho một sự thật có khả năng xảy ra hoặc ít có khả năng xảy ra hơn so với khi không có bằng chứng.

[04:32] okay this is all just we're orienting ourselves.
  Được rồi, tất cả những điều này chỉ là chúng ta đang định hướng bản thân.

[04:36] that's all old remember we learned about 401 we were so young then.
  Tất cả những điều đó đã cũ, hãy nhớ rằng chúng ta đã học về 401, chúng ta còn trẻ như vậy lúc đó.

[04:41] last wednesday or friday.
  Thứ Tư hoặc thứ Sáu tuần trước.

[04:44] but now we're sort of jaded and we're talking about rule 403.
  Nhưng bây giờ chúng ta hơi chán nản và chúng ta đang nói về quy tắc 403.

[04:47] right and think of this right as the train tracks.
  Đúng vậy, và hãy nghĩ về điều này như những đường ray xe lửa.

[04:50] rule 402 is going to screen out irrelevant evidence rule 401 and 402.
  Quy tắc 402 sẽ sàng lọc bằng chứng không liên quan, quy tắc 401 và 402.

[04:55] rule 403 presumes.
  Quy tắc 403 giả định.

[04:59] william we didn't start recording this did we.
  William, chúng ta đã không bắt đầu ghi âm cái này, phải không?

[05:03] william.
  William.

[05:08] you wouldn't believe the amount we're paying william to remember to record.
  Bạn sẽ không tin số tiền chúng ta đang trả cho William để nhớ ghi âm đâu.

[05:11] and so far I believe he's over three.
  Và cho đến nay tôi tin rằng anh ấy đã hơn ba.

[05:18] Strictly speaking, it is my job to remember to click record, but you know, I like to bring William to class to have someone to blame, right?
  Nói một cách nghiêm túc, đó là công việc của tôi để nhớ bấm nút ghi âm, nhưng bạn biết đấy, tôi thích đưa William đến lớp để có người đổ lỗi, phải không?

[05:28] Sorry, yes, that's right. Okay.
  Xin lỗi, vâng, đúng vậy. Được rồi.

[05:32] Please don't interrupt me, William.
  Xin đừng ngắt lời tôi, William.

[05:35] I'm just kidding. The great William Troubon is here.
  Tôi chỉ đùa thôi. William Troubon vĩ đại đã ở đây.

[05:37] Okay, so 403 assumes we're dealing with relevant evidence, but then it says that also can be excluded.
  Được rồi, vậy 403 giả định chúng ta đang xử lý bằng chứng liên quan, nhưng sau đó nó nói rằng điều đó cũng có thể bị loại trừ.

[05:42] The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value.
  Tòa án có thể loại trừ bằng chứng liên quan nếu giá trị chứng minh của nó.

[05:48] What's the test?
  Bài kiểm tra là gì?

[05:53] I'm sorry, say that one more time.
  Tôi xin lỗi, nói lại lần nữa.

[05:55] Substantially.
  Đáng kể.

[05:57] Where's the verb? You left out a verb.
  Động từ đâu? Bạn đã bỏ sót một động từ.

[06:00] Remember like sixth grade English. The verbs are important.
  Nhớ như tiếng Anh lớp sáu. Động từ rất quan trọng.

[06:06] It's a little verb, but it's important.
  Đó là một động từ nhỏ, nhưng nó quan trọng.

[06:08] the probative value is substantially outweighed.
  giá trị chứng cứ bị lu mờ đáng kể.

[06:11] I say that because it's important to.
  Tôi nói vậy vì nó quan trọng.

[06:13] distinguish that between it's not probative value substantially outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice right.
  phân biệt điều đó giữa giá trị chứng cứ không đáng kể làm lu mờ nguy cơ thiên vị không công bằng đúng vậy.

[06:20] the evidence may be excluded although relevant if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice or one of the other unwanted things okay commit that to memory.
  bằng chứng có thể bị loại trừ mặc dù có liên quan nếu giá trị chứng cứ của nó bị lu mờ đáng kể bởi nguy cơ thiên vị không công bằng hoặc một trong những điều không mong muốn khác được rồi ghi nhớ điều đó.

[06:36] it's a different balancing test and some of the other ones we'll see.
  đó là một bài kiểm tra cân bằng khác và một số bài kiểm tra khác chúng ta sẽ thấy.

[06:40] okay that's all we've learned about so far right we're going to talk about 404 just as sort of a preview of coming attractions later in class today when we talk about flight and alibi cases.
  được rồi đó là tất cả những gì chúng ta đã học cho đến nay đúng vậy chúng ta sẽ nói về 404 như một cái nhìn trước về những điểm hấp dẫn sắp tới trong lớp học hôm nay khi chúng ta nói về các vụ án bỏ trốn và bằng chứng ngoại phạm.

[06:54] but really all we're talking about is what's relevant and what can be excluded even though it is relevant.
  nhưng thực sự tất cả những gì chúng ta đang nói đến là những gì có liên quan và những gì có thể bị loại trừ mặc dù nó có liên quan.

[06:58] okay so let's talk about guns.
  được rồi vậy chúng ta hãy nói về súng.

[07:05] look at that uh and by the way at the end of this class even though we're ending a little early we will be caught up.
  nhìn xem uh và nhân tiện vào cuối lớp học này mặc dù chúng ta kết thúc sớm một chút chúng ta sẽ bắt kịp.

[07:10] okay so
  được rồi vậy

[07:14] you can bet on that and if not you can come to william with any of your complaints.
  Bạn có thể đặt cược vào điều đó và nếu không, bạn có thể đến gặp William với bất kỳ lời phàn nàn nào của mình.

[07:22] problem 1.8 is on page 48.
  Bài toán 1.8 ở trang 48.

[07:25] let's see who can i call on.
  Hãy xem tôi có thể gọi ai.

[07:32] we didn't we start with uh jackie.
  Chúng ta đã không, chúng ta bắt đầu với uh Jackie.

[07:35] that's not fair is harley here.
  Điều đó không công bằng, Harley có ở đây không.

[07:40] where's harley okay good so so harley.
  Harley đâu rồi, được rồi, tốt, vậy thì Harley.

[07:46] we're kind of going back to where we were on last friday.
  Chúng ta đang quay lại nơi chúng ta đã ở vào thứ Sáu tuần trước.

[07:51] but problem 1.8 presents this issue of the photo of these guns.
  Nhưng bài toán 1.8 đưa ra vấn đề này về bức ảnh của những khẩu súng này.

[07:58] guys been convicted of possession of an unregistered machine gun.
  Những người đàn ông đã bị kết án tàng trữ súng máy không đăng ký.

[08:03] and the government allegedly had altered a semi-automatic rifle.
  và chính phủ bị cáo buộc đã sửa đổi một khẩu súng trường bán tự động.

[08:06] what's the difference between a semi-automatic and an automatic rifle.
  Sự khác biệt giữa súng trường bán tự động và súng trường tự động là gì.

[08:11] the simion harley have to
  Simion Harley phải

[08:14] keep the trigger pulled right
  giữ cò súng kéo thẳng

[08:17] or to keep the bullets firing whereas
  hoặc để giữ cho đạn bắn ra trong khi

[08:20] with the fully automatic
  với chế độ hoàn toàn tự động

[08:23] you just have to pull back once you have
  bạn chỉ cần kéo lại một lần khi bạn có

[08:25] yeah semi-automatic right
  vâng bán tự động đúng không

[08:27] i'm not like a gun person but my understanding is semi-automatic is one shot per trigger pull automatic you hold the trigger down and pop up pop up right okay so the issue here was
  tôi không phải là người thích súng nhưng tôi hiểu rằng bán tự động là một phát mỗi lần bóp cò, tự động thì bạn giữ cò và bắn liên tục bắn liên tục đúng không được rồi vậy vấn đề ở đây là

[08:39] had mr hitt converted this illegally
  ông hitt đã chuyển đổi cái này một cách bất hợp pháp

[08:42] from a semi-automatic which was legal to an automatic machine gun which is illegal
  từ một khẩu bán tự động hợp pháp thành một súng máy tự động là bất hợp pháp

[08:48] so the question the problem gives you is whether the rifle would in fact rapid fire like an automatic weapon
  vì vậy câu hỏi vấn đề đặt ra cho bạn là liệu khẩu súng trường có thực sự bắn nhanh như một vũ khí tự động hay không

[08:55] they had their own experts test fire it
  họ đã có các chuyên gia của họ thử bắn nó

[08:57] the government expert the prosecution expert fired it and it shot you know he pulled the trigger
  chuyên gia của chính phủ chuyên gia công tố đã bắn nó và nó đã bắn bạn biết đấy anh ta đã bóp cò

[09:03] but then the defense expert fired it and it didn't okay
  nhưng sau đó chuyên gia bào chữa đã bắn nó và nó không bắn được được rồi

[09:07] and so the defense theory was that it must have misfired during the prosecution's test because
  và vì vậy lý thuyết của bên bào chữa là nó chắc hẳn đã bị kẹt đạn trong quá trình thử nghiệm của bên công tố vì

[09:14] the internal parts may have been dirty and uh in ill repair defective.
  Các bộ phận bên trong có thể đã bị bẩn và bị hỏng, lỗi.

[09:20] okay so there's your defense theory.
  Được rồi, đó là lý thuyết bào chữa của bạn.

[09:22] harley.
  Harley.

[09:24] okay so the prosecution has to prove that it was an automatic weapon.
  Được rồi, vậy bên công tố phải chứng minh đó là một vũ khí tự động.

[09:27] they have an expert a firearms forensic expert fire it and says yes i pulled it once and it fired three times.
  Họ có một chuyên gia, một chuyên gia pháp y về vũ khí, bắn thử và nói rằng vâng, tôi đã bóp cò một lần và nó đã bắn ba lần.

[09:32] three shots and the defense says well that might have been because the insides were unclean and defective and worn.
  Ba phát và bên bào chữa nói rằng có lẽ đó là do bên trong không sạch sẽ, bị lỗi và mòn.

[09:38] and what does the government uh try to introduce to show that it was in fact in good operable clean working condition.
  Và chính phủ cố gắng đưa ra điều gì để chứng tỏ rằng nó thực sự ở trong tình trạng tốt, hoạt động được, sạch sẽ và đang hoạt động?

[09:47] okay great nothing wrong with that right.
  Được rồi, tuyệt vời, không có gì sai với điều đó đúng không?

[09:49] harley.
  Harley.

[09:55] okay never beg to differ just differ right.
  Được rồi, đừng bao giờ cầu xin để khác biệt, chỉ cần khác biệt thôi đúng không?

[09:59] yeah the defense differs and what was their problem what did the defense say the problem was.
  Vâng, bên bào chữa khác biệt và vấn đề của họ là gì, bên bào chữa nói vấn đề là gì?

[10:04] um they said that it wasn't relevant because it didn't show the interior.
  Ừm, họ nói rằng nó không liên quan vì nó không cho thấy bên trong.

[10:08] okay okay so let's talk about
  Được rồi, được rồi, vậy chúng ta hãy nói về

[10:16] the actual photograph in here.
  Bức ảnh thực tế ở đây.

[10:19] obviously it was not a photograph of the gun's interior.
  Rõ ràng đó không phải là ảnh chụp bên trong khẩu súng.

[10:20] the only picture that the prosecution had
  Bức ảnh duy nhất mà bên công tố có

[10:22] was a photograph that showed not only the gun in question
  là một bức ảnh cho thấy không chỉ khẩu súng đang bị xem xét

[10:28] but about a dozen other weapons nine other guns including three that look like assault rifles and several knives.
  mà còn khoảng một tá vũ khí khác, chín khẩu súng khác bao gồm ba khẩu trông giống súng trường tấn công và một vài con dao.

[10:34] all incidentally the evidence would show belonging not to hit but to his his roommate.
  tất cả đều tình cờ, bằng chứng sẽ cho thấy không thuộc về anh ta mà thuộc về bạn cùng phòng của anh ta.

[10:38] um so harley you be the defense lawyer here and tell me exactly what your objection is to this photograph coming in or objections you might have more than one.
  ừm vậy harley bạn hãy là luật sư bào chữa ở đây và cho tôi biết chính xác lý do phản đối của bạn đối với việc bức ảnh này được đưa vào hay những lý do phản đối bạn có thể có nhiều hơn một.

[10:50] i would first as the problem says make the relevancy objection because the photograph of the outside of the gun doesn't really tell you anything about the.
  Đầu tiên, như vấn đề đã nói, tôi sẽ đưa ra phản đối về tính liên quan vì bức ảnh bên ngoài khẩu súng không thực sự cho bạn biết điều gì về.

[11:05] thank you first of all we have an objection.
  Cảm ơn bạn, trước hết chúng tôi có một sự phản đối.

[11:09] is there any rule under which you're objecting um.
  có quy tắc nào mà bạn đang phản đối không ừm.

[11:13] yes okay we only know two so there you go good.
  vâng được rồi chúng tôi chỉ biết hai nên bạn cứ tiếp tục tốt.

[11:17] all right you have a 50 50 chance.
  Được rồi, bạn có cơ hội 50-50.

[11:21] rule 401 harley says this is not relevant because it doesn't show the interior of the gun.
  Quy tắc 401 Harley nói cái này không liên quan vì nó không cho thấy bên trong khẩu súng.

[11:28] any prosecutor want to say how this is relevant?
  Có công tố viên nào muốn nói cái này liên quan như thế nào không?

[11:35] um there is a tendency to show that this has property value because if the argument is that the gun was dirty at the time that caused it to misfire seeing that the outside is clean tends to show that the inside leg is also clean.
  Ừm, có xu hướng cho thấy cái này có giá trị tài sản vì nếu lập luận là khẩu súng bị bẩn vào thời điểm đó khiến nó bị kẹt đạn, thì việc thấy bên ngoài sạch sẽ có xu hướng cho thấy bên trong cũng sạch sẽ.

[11:46] okay do you see it what a nice little chain of inferences you just drew it took you a minute to get there but that's what you did at the very end right.
  Được rồi, bạn có thấy không? Một chuỗi suy luận hay ho mà bạn vừa rút ra. Bạn mất một phút để đi đến đó nhưng đó là những gì bạn đã làm ở cuối cùng, đúng không?

[11:54] fact the outside of the the evidence shows the proposed evidence shows a clean exterior of a gun.
  Thực tế, bên ngoài của bằng chứng được đề xuất cho thấy bên ngoài sạch sẽ của một khẩu súng.

[12:02] guns with clean exteriors are more likely to have clean interiors.
  Súng có bên ngoài sạch sẽ có khả năng có bên trong sạch sẽ cao hơn.

[12:06] guns with clean interiors are less likely to misfire.
  Súng có bên trong sạch sẽ ít có khả năng bị kẹt đạn hơn.

[12:11] i think she wins right because of that low standard 401 does it have any tendency to make the existence of a material fact.
  Tôi nghĩ cô ấy thắng đúng không? Bởi vì tiêu chuẩn thấp 401 đó, nó có xu hướng làm cho sự tồn tại của một sự thật vật chất hay không.

[12:18] either more or less probably than the absence of the evidence i think this picture of the exterior does have a tendency to show have a bearing on the cleanliness or not of the interior of the gun
  hoặc nhiều hơn hoặc ít hơn có lẽ so với việc thiếu bằng chứng tôi nghĩ bức tranh về ngoại thất này có xu hướng cho thấy có liên quan đến sự sạch sẽ hay không của bên trong khẩu súng

[12:28] you lose harley do you give up
  bạn thua rồi harley bạn có bỏ cuộc không

[12:33] no good good in the face of me telling you to be quiet and ruling against you and 39 of your classmates i've invited to be prosecutors are you against you you don't give up harley what's your next argument
  không tốt tốt khi tôi bảo bạn im lặng và ra phán quyết chống lại bạn và 39 bạn cùng lớp tôi đã mời làm công tố viên bạn có chống lại bạn không bạn không bỏ cuộc harley lập luận tiếp theo của bạn là gì

[12:45] um
  ừm

[12:49] next objection you've lost forgive up on the first one
  phản đối tiếp theo bạn đã thua bỏ qua cái đầu tiên

[12:53] my next objection would be that it would be unfair
  phản đối tiếp theo của tôi là điều đó sẽ không công bằng

[12:57] okay or more specific so now you are going to rule 403
  được rồi hoặc cụ thể hơn vậy bây giờ bạn sẽ ra phán quyết 403

[13:03] more specifically because you'll remember under rule 403 we're always talking about a balancing test
  cụ thể hơn vì bạn sẽ nhớ theo quy tắc 403 chúng ta luôn nói về một bài kiểm tra cân bằng

[13:09] i've already found the judge has already found that it does have some probative value under rule 401 so more specifically state your your argument under 403
  tôi đã tìm thấy thẩm phán đã tìm thấy rằng nó có một số giá trị chứng minh theo quy tắc 401 vậy cụ thể hơn hãy nêu lập luận của bạn theo 403

[13:19] Um I object because it's probated value is substantially outwatched weighs by the danger of it causing a fair prejudice to the debate.
  Tôi phản đối vì giá trị chứng minh của nó bị vượt trội đáng kể bởi nguy cơ nó gây ra định kiến không công bằng cho cuộc tranh luận.

[13:26] Great what is that unfair prejudice?
  Tuyệt vời, định kiến không công bằng đó là gì?

[13:31] That the inclusion the inclusion of the picture with all the other guns you may paint an image in the jury's mind that this is someone who's substantially more dangerous than he is because he has all these other guns including assault rifles even though they're not his they're the housemates.
  Việc bao gồm, việc bao gồm bức ảnh với tất cả các khẩu súng khác có thể vẽ nên một hình ảnh trong tâm trí bồi thẩm đoàn rằng đây là một người nguy hiểm hơn đáng kể so với thực tế vì anh ta có tất cả những khẩu súng khác này bao gồm cả súng trường tấn công, ngay cả khi chúng không phải của anh ta, chúng là của bạn cùng nhà.

[13:54] And it also just it doesn't go to the fact of whether he ultimately got in question it puts in the jury's mind evidence of all these other guns instead of the gun.
  Và nó cũng không đi vào sự thật là liệu cuối cùng anh ta có bị đặt câu hỏi hay không, nó đặt vào tâm trí bồi thẩm đoàn bằng chứng về tất cả những khẩu súng khác này thay vì khẩu súng.

[14:05] Right okay.
  Đúng vậy, được rồi.

[14:07] Be sure to keep your analyses separate about the balancing test you sort of slid into probative value.
  Hãy chắc chắn giữ các phân tích của bạn riêng biệt về bài kiểm tra cân bằng, bạn đã hơi trượt sang giá trị chứng minh.

[14:13] You say look maybe it has some probative value right.
  Bạn nói xem, có lẽ nó có một số giá trị chứng minh, đúng không.

[14:16] That beautiful chain of inferences that you drew.
  Chuỗi suy luận đẹp đẽ mà bạn đã rút ra.

[14:19] it's not that strong actually right i mean kind of but like i don't know the exterior of the gun you wipe the gun down it's got a very clean exterior says nothing but the interior but you know you survive 401.
  Thực ra nó không mạnh lắm đúng không ý tôi là cũng hơi hơi nhưng mà tôi không biết bên ngoài của khẩu súng bạn lau khẩu súng xuống nó có một bên ngoài rất sạch sẽ không nói gì nhưng bên trong nhưng bạn biết bạn sống sót 401.

[14:29] okay so you can say judge even if there is some prohibitive value to this picture coming in.
  Được rồi vậy bạn có thể nói thẩm phán ngay cả khi có một số giá trị cấm đối với bức ảnh này được đưa vào.

[14:34] let's talk about the danger of unfair prejudice and don't overthink it because you're talking about after all what is a jury going to think about this.
  Hãy nói về nguy cơ thiên vị không công bằng và đừng suy nghĩ quá nhiều về nó bởi vì bạn đang nói về cuối cùng thì bồi thẩm đoàn sẽ nghĩ gì về điều này.

[14:41] put in pretend you've never been to law school before right.
  Hãy đặt mình vào giả vờ như bạn chưa bao giờ học trường luật trước đây đúng không.

[14:44] the prosecutor says oh no problem we've got a picture of that gun here it is.
  Công tố viên nói ồ không vấn đề gì chúng tôi có một bức ảnh của khẩu súng đó đây rồi.

[14:48] the jury you know recoils there's nine assault rifles and three knives.
  Bồi thẩm đoàn bạn biết đấy lùi lại có chín súng trường tấn công và ba con dao.

[14:53] they're gonna think this case is no longer about was this an operable firearm.
  Họ sẽ nghĩ vụ án này không còn là về việc đây có phải là một khẩu súng hoạt động được nữa không.

[14:56] it's like we got to get this guy off the streets right.
  Nó giống như chúng ta phải tống cổ gã này ra khỏi đường phố đúng không.

[15:00] okay yeah so then you've got your danger of unfair prejudice that the jury is going to draw an improper conclusion.
  Được rồi vâng vậy thì bạn có nguy cơ thiên vị không công bằng mà bồi thẩm đoàn sẽ đưa ra một kết luận không phù hợp.

[15:07] you could also say confusion of the issues or any other improper purpose.
  Bạn cũng có thể nói sự nhầm lẫn các vấn đề hoặc bất kỳ mục đích không phù hợp nào khác.

[15:12] okay i think she's going to win do you give up.
  Được rồi tôi nghĩ cô ấy sẽ thắng bạn có bỏ cuộc không.

[15:23] you know he's not really going to you know go free mr hit or be improperly convicted.
  bạn biết đấy anh ấy sẽ không thực sự để bạn biết được tự do ông hit hoặc bị kết án sai.

[15:26] the case is from 1992 it's over so you can take any position you want.
  vụ án là từ năm 1992 nó đã kết thúc nên bạn có thể đưa ra bất kỳ lập trường nào bạn muốn.

[15:32] she's making some good arguments but if you're the prosecutor what might you argue in response.
  cô ấy đang đưa ra một số lập luận hay nhưng nếu bạn là công tố viên bạn có thể lập luận gì để phản bác.

[15:40] and remember it's a balancing test.
  và hãy nhớ đó là một bài kiểm tra cân bằng.

[15:45] you've got help yes could you argue that prejudice does not substantially that prejudice does not substantially outweigh the value.
  bạn đã nhận được sự giúp đỡ vâng bạn có thể lập luận rằng định kiến không đáng kể rằng định kiến không đáng kể làm lu mờ giá trị.

[15:55] okay sure you could argue you know you can argue about.
  được thôi chắc chắn bạn có thể lập luận bạn biết đấy bạn có thể lập luận về điều đó.

[15:58] yeah well maybe that weighs it a little but still you know 403 and 401 and the whole federal rules are an evidence-friendly sort of a system of rules.
  vâng có lẽ điều đó làm giảm bớt một chút nhưng vẫn bạn biết đấy 403 và 401 và toàn bộ các quy tắc liên bang là một hệ thống quy tắc thân thiện với bằng chứng.

[16:05] what else is unusual about this picture.
  điều gì khác thường về bức ảnh này.

[16:09] that's unusual if you have tried a lot of cases.
  điều đó thật bất thường nếu bạn đã xét xử nhiều vụ án.

[16:13] it's four by six it's a four by six inch photograph right.
  nó là bốn trên sáu nó là một bức ảnh chụp kích thước bốn trên sáu inch phải không.

[16:17] every prosecutor that i went up against would have this a four foot by six foot photograph right.
  mọi công tố viên mà tôi đối đầu sẽ có bức ảnh này kích thước bốn foot trên sáu foot phải không.

[16:22] full color struggling under the weight.
  màu đầy đủ đang vật lộn dưới sức nặng.

[16:24] of it judge could i.
  của nó thẩm phán tôi có thể.

[16:25] you know wallpaper this along the back.
  bạn biết đấy giấy dán tường này dọc theo mặt sau.

[16:27] of the courtroom in front of the jury.
  của phòng xử án trước bồi thẩm đoàn.

[16:29] so you know if you're the prosecutor say.
  vì vậy bạn biết đấy nếu bạn là công tố viên hãy nói.

[16:30] judge.
  thẩm phán.

[16:32] how do we mitigate even assuming there is some unfair prejudice.
  làm thế nào chúng ta giảm thiểu ngay cả khi giả định có một số định kiến không công bằng.

[16:36] how can we mitigate that unfair prejudice.
  làm thế nào chúng ta có thể giảm thiểu định kiến không công bằng đó.

[16:39] good jury instruction right.
  hướng dẫn bồi thẩm đoàn tốt đúng không.

[16:42] well first of all you know it's not a huge exhibit it's a four by six inch photograph.
  à trước hết bạn biết đấy nó không phải là một bằng chứng lớn nó là một bức ảnh bốn trên sáu inch.

[16:46] we can have a jury instruction we can just pass it to the jury and then retrieve it so they're not staring at the whole time.
  chúng ta có thể có một hướng dẫn bồi thẩm đoàn chúng ta có thể chỉ đưa nó cho bồi thẩm đoàn rồi lấy lại để họ không nhìn chằm chằm vào nó cả thời gian.

[16:53] sure what would that jury instruction look like.
  chắc chắn hướng dẫn bồi thẩm đoàn đó sẽ trông như thế nào.

[16:54] ladies and gentlemen the jury you are instructed not only is mr hitt not charged with any of these other weapons.
  thưa quý vị và các bạn bồi thẩm đoàn quý vị được hướng dẫn không chỉ ông hitt không bị buộc tội với bất kỳ vũ khí nào khác.

[17:00] these weapons are factually not his they have nothing to do with this case.
  những vũ khí này thực tế không phải của ông ta chúng không liên quan gì đến vụ án này.

[17:05] okay a strongly worded instruction might really reduce that danger of unfair prejudice.
  được rồi một hướng dẫn mạnh mẽ có thể thực sự giảm bớt nguy cơ định kiến không công bằng đó.

[17:10] and really hurt harley's argument for exclusion of this evidence.
  và thực sự làm tổn hại lập luận của harley về việc loại trừ bằng chứng này.

[17:17] okay question about that.
  được rồi câu hỏi về điều đó.

[17:20] okay um.
  được rồi ừm.

[17:24] in this case the trial judge allowed the.
  trong vụ án này thẩm phán phiên tòa đã cho phép.

[17:25] photo to come into heaven oh also what else could you do crop the picture right i should have said that crop the picture right
  ảnh để vào thiên đàng ồ còn có thể làm gì khác cắt ảnh đúng không tôi lẽ ra nên nói vậy cắt ảnh đúng không

[17:31] cut out the other guns um the trial judge allowed the photo to come into evidence
  loại bỏ những khẩu súng khác um thẩm phán phiên tòa đã cho phép bức ảnh được đưa vào bằng chứng

[17:36] he said he found that the probative value was not substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice
  ông ấy nói ông ấy thấy rằng giá trị chứng minh không bị ảnh hưởng đáng kể bởi nguy cơ thiên vị không công bằng

[17:43] and then the ninth circuit reversed the conviction found that that ruling was an abusive discretion
  và sau đó tòa phúc thẩm thứ chín đã đảo ngược bản án cho rằng phán quyết đó là sự lạm dụng quyền hạn

[17:48] because it had such minimal probative value and it was they found substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice that the jury would engage in sort of guilt by association
  bởi vì nó có giá trị chứng minh rất nhỏ và họ thấy rằng nó bị ảnh hưởng đáng kể bởi nguy cơ thiên vị không công bằng rằng bồi thẩm đoàn sẽ tham gia vào kiểu tội lỗi do liên đới

[17:58] um okay there's a little snippet from the us versus james case
  um được rồi có một đoạn trích nhỏ từ vụ án us versus james

[18:02] just to show you that this risk of unfair prejudice you know 403 protection against danger of unfair prejudice cuts both ways
  chỉ để cho bạn thấy rằng nguy cơ thiên vị không công bằng này bạn biết đó sự bảo vệ theo điều 403 chống lại nguy cơ thiên vị không công bằng có tác dụng hai chiều

[18:11] it doesn't only protect criminal defendants in criminal cases it protects the prosecution
  nó không chỉ bảo vệ bị cáo hình sự trong các vụ án hình sự mà còn bảo vệ bên công tố

[18:18] and so that's an interesting little dissent in there you remember the james case
  và đó là một ý kiến bất đồng thú vị ở đó bạn nhớ vụ án james chứ

[18:21] where the issue is whether mr ogden's prior convict or prior
  trong đó vấn đề là liệu ông ogden có tiền án hay tiền án

[18:25] Violent acts could come in some of them.
  Các hành vi bạo lực có thể được đưa vào trong một số trường hợp.

[18:28] Were convictions that some weren't.
  Đó là những bản án mà một số thì không.

[18:30] Um and and uh the majority said they should come in.
  Ừm và và ờ đa số nói rằng chúng nên được đưa vào.

[18:34] The dissent here that you read a little part of judge i think was uh judge kleinfeld.
  Sự bất đồng chính kiến ở đây mà bạn đọc một phần nhỏ của thẩm phán, tôi nghĩ là thẩm phán Kleinfeld.

[18:39] Um said you know i agree that this these pri proof of the prior violent acts was relevant 401 and material right.
  Ừm nói rằng bạn biết đấy tôi đồng ý rằng những bằng chứng này về các hành vi bạo lực trước đó là có liên quan theo điều 401 và có tính vật chất, đúng không.

[18:49] remember this because we're talking about what miss miss what miss james thought at the time she handed jalen the gun.
  Hãy nhớ điều này bởi vì chúng ta đang nói về những gì cô James đã nghĩ vào thời điểm cô ấy đưa khẩu súng cho Jalen.

[18:56] And so kleinfeld said you're right that they're relevant but that's not the end of the analysis.
  Và vì vậy Kleinfeld nói bạn nói đúng là chúng có liên quan nhưng đó không phải là kết thúc của phân tích.

[19:00] Because 403 says the probative value if it's substantially that way by a danger of unfair prejudice it just can could still be excluded.
  Bởi vì điều 403 nói rằng giá trị chứng minh nếu nó bị ảnh hưởng đáng kể bởi nguy cơ thiên vị không công bằng thì nó vẫn có thể bị loại trừ.

[19:06] And he said um he would have affirmed the trial court's exclusion of those prior records because of the danger of unfair prejudice to the government.
  Và ông ấy nói ừm ông ấy sẽ giữ nguyên quyết định loại trừ các hồ sơ trước đó của tòa án vì nguy cơ thiên vị không công bằng đối với chính phủ.

[19:18] Okay to the prosecution anyone want to tell me specifically explicitly what is the danger of unfair prejudice to the government prosecution if all these violent past.
  Được rồi, đối với bên công tố, có ai muốn nói cho tôi biết cụ thể, rõ ràng nguy cơ thiên vị không công bằng đối với chính phủ, bên công tố là gì nếu tất cả những quá khứ bạo lực này.

[19:28] acts of ogden come in
  hành động của ogden xuất hiện

[19:30] yeah then the victim
  vâng sau đó nạn nhân

[19:33] who they're advocating for in addition
  mà họ đang ủng hộ thêm

[19:35] to people
  cho mọi người

[19:37] would be seen maybe somebody who was
  có thể được coi là ai đó đã

[19:39] like maybe more miserable
  như có lẽ khốn khổ hơn

[19:41] what are we asking the jury to do not
  chúng ta đang yêu cầu bồi thẩm đoàn làm gì không

[19:43] decide whether or not the victim was
  quyết định xem nạn nhân có

[19:45] worthy of being executed
  xứng đáng bị hành quyết hay không

[19:47] right or asking them to decide what was
  phải hoặc yêu cầu họ quyết định điều gì đã

[19:49] in miss james's mind
  trong tâm trí cô james

[19:50] when she handed her daughter the gun
  khi cô ấy đưa con gái khẩu súng

[19:52] right that's the danger of unfair
  phải đó là nguy cơ của sự không công bằng

[19:53] prejudice
  thành kiến

[19:55] all right any questions about that
  được rồi có câu hỏi nào về điều đó không

[19:59] good okay good
  tốt được rồi tốt

[20:04] um
  ừm

[20:11] well i don't know if you heard
  à tôi không biết bạn có nghe không

[20:14] there was some sandwiches stolen from
  có một ít bánh sandwich bị đánh cắp từ

[20:17] the brief stop today
  chuyến dừng chân ngắn hôm nay

[20:19] i'm not today monday
  tôi không phải hôm nay thứ hai

[20:24] and by coincidence jake is not here
  và tình cờ là jake không có ở đây

[20:27] today
  hôm nay

[20:28] okay i shouldn't say by coincidence i'm

[20:30] just fact one

[20:33] although it's a made up fact sandwiches

[20:35] were stolen from the brief stop on

[20:36] monday

[20:38] fact two jake and jake alone

[20:42] is on zoom today who here thinks

[20:46] jake stole the sandwiches from the brief

[20:48] stop raise it raise your hands

[20:49] okay you can't take into account his

[20:51] prior reputation and stuff like that

[20:52] we'll get to that

[20:53] next week with 404.

[20:57] but it seems fishy doesn't it

[21:01] it doesn't seem fishy geez jake they're

[21:04] not willing to convict you

[21:07] let's say though that jake is on trial

[21:09] for stealing the sandwiches from the

[21:10] brief stop

[21:12] and the prosecution wants to introduce

[21:14] evidence of his flights

[21:15] from sydney lewis hall

[21:18] now it may not be enough to convict him

[21:21] but is it relevant evidence

[21:25] yes no no

[21:28] okay let's get this straight it's our

[21:30] third class okay

[21:32] you don't don't distance yourself from

[21:34] everything now the prosecution might say

[21:35] this i'll

[21:36] are you i don't really like my argument

[21:38] but here you go just embrace it

[21:39] okay so i'm appointing you jake's

[21:42] prosecutor

[21:51] does it have any tendency to make the

[21:54] material effect either more or less

[21:55] likely than the absence

[21:56] okay fact there are 40 people in this

[21:59] class

[22:00] fact 39 of them showed up today

[22:04] one didn't makes you think

[22:08] right i'm not saying it's enough to

[22:09] convict jake

[22:11] but does it have any tendency to prove

[22:14] that he was the thief

[22:17] we have a hesitant

[22:20] proponent of this piece of evidence

[22:23] but sure right we're talking about these

[22:24] cases of flight

[22:26] now you can be jake's defenders but i'll

[22:28] be his prosecutor

[22:29] um well look here's my chain of

[22:33] inferences judge about why this should

[22:34] come in

[22:36] jake took a certain action or inaction

[22:38] his action was staying away from school

[22:39] at the just after the crime occurred

[22:41] okay

[22:44] that action can be characterized as

[22:46] flight

[22:48] that flight shows a consciousness of

[22:50] guilt and jake's

[22:52] consciousness of guilt is proof of his

[22:54] actual guilt of stealing the sandwiches

[22:56] okay anyone want to defend jake and tell

[22:58] me why that's not true

[23:02] well jake good news and bad news

[23:06] you don't have a ton of enemies but you

[23:08] don't really have many people standing

[23:09] up for you

[23:10] um okay unless somebody stands up for

[23:12] jake i'm going to introduce this

[23:13] evidence and it's probably

[23:14] jake do you want to stand up for

[23:16] yourself

[23:18] uh sure i will um

[23:21] so i think that the your last

[23:25] piece of the change where you said that

[23:27] the um

[23:29] guilty conscience basically it tends to

[23:32] show

[23:32] actual guilt is flawed

[23:40] so you're admitting that you think you

[23:43] stole the sandwiches

[23:46] no i'm not making anything sir sounded

[23:48] like it didn't it

[23:49] um are there any okay that may be a

[23:52] problem in this chain

[23:54] there's four little pieces of the chain

[23:56] three little links any other weaknesses

[23:58] in my

[23:58] in my chain of inferences yeah

[24:04] consciousness of guilt to consciousness

[24:05] of guilt of the crime charge

[24:07] ah he might have stolen some

[24:11] stuff from faculty services or something

[24:13] right

[24:15] probably let's be honest right okay

[24:19] so he might have consciousness of guilt

[24:21] but of something other than the charge

[24:22] defense

[24:23] okay so there's some ambiguity there

[24:25] what else

[24:26] isn't there a glaring weakness here yeah

[24:34] i'm not allowed to speculate on who has

[24:36] or doesn't have covid

[24:37] but what's your broader point

[24:42] okay okay i'm very kind of

[24:45] facilely said well he's not here and

[24:48] that flight shows that

[24:49] jake did you flee from school i mean

[24:52] don't answer that

[24:53] you do have a right to remain silent

[24:54] that's the other class i teach though

[24:57] but right his actions cannot necessarily

[25:01] be considered flight

[25:02] and if they're not considered flight

[25:04] then they have no logical relevance to

[25:06] anything else right

[25:08] um right if jake missed the bus

[25:12] coming i guess buses don't really exist

[25:15] anymore but

[25:15] uh the the um you know the bus that goes

[25:18] up and down from blacksburg to dc

[25:21] good to know about but if he missed the

[25:24] bus

[25:25] and so he's just stuck in harrisonburg

[25:26] right now and

[25:28] he can prove that he tried to get on the

[25:29] bus he just missed it that doesn't mean

[25:31] anything right

[25:32] sure if he's unable to come maybe jake's

[25:34] incarcerated right now

[25:36] uh right maybe he's uh something like

[25:38] that

[25:39] okay so the point is the facts will

[25:42] differ on any of these cases

[25:44] but you're going to look if you're the

[25:46] opponent of this kind of evidence for

[25:47] the weak link in that chain of

[25:48] inferences

[25:49] is that a hand okay

[25:54] so jake you're off the hook there's

[25:57] okay so jake you're off the hook there's

[25:57] not enough evidence to um

[25:59] to convict you although it does look

[26:02] suspicious

[26:04] so this is what the myers case is about

[26:06] right and so

[26:08] the myers case deals specifically with

[26:10] flight but of course this is just one

[26:11] factual application of 401 and 403

[26:16] and so um get used to

[26:19] trying to think as really as concretely

[26:21] and explicitly as possible

[26:23] what is the chain of inferences

[26:26] between this piece of evidence and the

[26:28] material fact

[26:30] and then what are the weak links in that

[26:32] chain of inferences

[26:33] okay because of course whether you're

[26:35] trying to offer the evidence or trying

[26:36] to oppose it

[26:36] you better be thinking of the other

[26:38] side's arguments too okay so so here

[26:40] we've got myers

[26:41] he's like the jake of the 1970s

[26:45] and mr myers there's two incidents that

[26:48] the

[26:48] prosecution is trying to characterize as

[26:50] flight right somebody tell me what

[26:52] they're let's see

[26:52] who can i call it who's kristen where's

[26:55] kristen

[26:57] oh here you are again okay good well

[26:59] sorry that that's the breaks

[27:01] kristen tell me this is how you get

[27:04] rewarded for

[27:05] volunteering in class i then just call

[27:06] on you randomly

[27:08] kristen tell me what the two two two um

[27:11] actions were let's say that the

[27:12] prosecution was characterizing his

[27:14] flight or wanted to characterize his

[27:15] flight in the myers

[27:19] and case after that robbery meyer left

[27:22] and went to

[27:24] pennsylvania um

[27:29] and then he went to california okay and

[27:32] what happened in california

[27:37] well there's eight different fast and

[27:39] furious so you got to narrow it down

[27:40] kristen

[27:41] chasing him

[27:48] were on a motorcycle and fbi agents were

[27:51] attempting to run them off the road

[27:54] um and then they got off the motorcycle

[27:56] after they fell and they tried to stay

[27:58] with flight but there was conflicting

[27:59] testimony as to if they were just

[28:04] okay great that's california

[28:08] in florida there'd been this other

[28:09] incident at the mall right what happened

[28:11] at the mall in

[28:14] florida

[28:16] myers and his girlfriend was answering

[28:18] the phone and

[28:19] told her that he didn't want to speak to

[28:20] them then he went to the mall and he

[28:22] contacted her to bring

[28:23] him closing while there he saw one of

[28:26] the fbi agents that had continually

[28:27] contacted their home

[28:28] and ran good okay great so in some

[28:32] at some level of abstraction all these

[28:34] flight cases involve the same chain of

[28:35] inferences right

[28:36] action can be characterized as flight

[28:39] flight can

[28:40] can show consciousness of guilt that

[28:42] specifically can be shown as

[28:43] consciousness guilt of a specific charge

[28:45] defense

[28:46] and that can be linked to actual effect

[28:48] actual guilt of the charge defense

[28:50] okay okay thank you kristen

[28:53] now somebody um explain why

[28:57] mr myers let's take the take either one

[28:59] florida or california

[29:01] why his actions should not be admissible

[29:03] are not relevant to the question of

[29:05] the ultimate material question of his

[29:07] guilt of the charge defense

[29:12] yes sir because he's committed

[29:16] well first of all he's actually avoiding

[29:18] police officers they've given other

[29:20] crimes he's committed

[29:24] um

[29:26] of all the changes of weak way i guess

[29:30] okay yeah you can kind of take your pick

[29:31] with some of these right just like in in

[29:33] jake's

[29:34] situation you can take your pick some

[29:35] people want to attack the the last link

[29:38] his consciousness of guilt does not show

[29:40] actual guilt or

[29:42] his conscience of guilt doesn't show

[29:43] consciousness guilt of the specific

[29:44] offense

[29:45] or his action can't be even

[29:47] characterized as flight right so there's

[29:49] these weak links

[29:50] and it's the same thing with myers right

[29:52] and you got to delve into the facts a

[29:53] little bit

[29:54] and kristen laid them out nicely um

[29:56] first of all in florida

[29:58] this first action that they're

[29:59] characterizing his flight

[30:01] he's at the mall the cop tries to stop

[30:05] him excuse me the law enforcement

[30:06] officer tries to stop him and he runs

[30:08] into the mall

[30:09] suspicious right until you find out what

[30:14] the officer never identified himself as

[30:16] law enforcement and he was wearing plain

[30:17] clothes

[30:19] if i'm at the mall and just some random

[30:22] guy starts running at me

[30:24] i don't know exactly how i'd respond

[30:27] but probably the most responsible thing

[30:29] to do would be to run back into the mall

[30:30] right

[30:34] so that's not necessarily flight then

[30:37] you get two months later in california

[30:40] mr myers is riding his motorcycle down

[30:43] the road

[30:45] and right suddenly again an unmarked car

[30:49] you've got an fbi agent coming toward

[30:51] them in an unmarked car

[30:52] suddenly crosses into their lanes and

[30:54] tries to drive straight at them

[30:57] again i'm not sure how mr myers was

[30:59] supposed to respond

[31:00] but it's not necessarily probative of

[31:02] any guilty conscience

[31:04] to drive away from this apparently

[31:06] crazed and homicidal driver who's trying

[31:08] to run you off the road

[31:09] right there are also some other problems

[31:13] with the the officers testimony was

[31:16] impeached with some prior statements

[31:17] that the officer

[31:18] had made right and then what else what

[31:20] what about that link between

[31:22] consciousness of guilt to the specific

[31:23] offense

[31:25] the court said you can't make that link

[31:28] either

[31:30] because mr myers had apparently robbed a

[31:31] bank in pennsylvania

[31:34] after the florida incident but before

[31:36] the california incident

[31:38] right and so they said even if he had

[31:40] been fleeing from law enforcement

[31:42] knowingly fleeing from law enforcement

[31:44] he might have been fleeing because of a

[31:46] consciousness of guilt of the

[31:47] pennsylvania robbery

[31:48] which is obviously irrelevant to the

[31:50] florida robbery

[31:52] right the takeaway

[31:55] the pro tip here is to always have

[31:58] several different offenses for which

[31:59] you're suspected

[32:03] it's like jake somebody said well you

[32:05] know maybe he committed some other crime

[32:06] in the law school and he was fleeing

[32:07] from that

[32:10] because then you can't connect it up to

[32:12] the it's not material right it's only

[32:13] material

[32:14] if it can connect it up to the florida

[32:15] robbery which was at issue in the case

[32:18] so you see the cord in myers there the

[32:20] fifth circuit really taking apart this

[32:22] this chain of inferences that we've been

[32:24] talking about

[32:25] um and they find problems with several

[32:27] of the different links right

[32:29] the testimony of flight was inconclusive

[32:31] it was impossible to tell which crime

[32:32] inspired his consciousness of guilt even

[32:34] if he had consciousness of guilt

[32:36] um and and that uh you know they said

[32:39] that his flight

[32:40] or his actions they wouldn't call it

[32:41] flight the time too much time had passed

[32:44] depriving his actions of what they call

[32:46] that instinctive or impulsive character

[32:48] like flinching

[32:49] that indicates fear of apprehension and

[32:51] gives evidence of flight such

[32:53] trustworthiness as it possesses so the

[32:54] court says his actions

[32:56] both in california and florida were so

[32:58] ambiguous with regard to any material

[33:00] fact

[33:01] that they shouldn't have been admitted

[33:05] okay

[33:09] there is a counter argument to be made

[33:12] right and i was saying all the

[33:13] evidentiary problems in the myers case

[33:16] does anyone want to argue as a

[33:19] prosecutor that notwithstanding all

[33:21] those

[33:21] factual evidentiary problems with this

[33:23] this action

[33:25] it still should have been admitted

[33:31] it's a it's a relevance question

[33:36] let's talk about 401 any prosecutor want

[33:40] to say it should be admitted

[33:43] yes i mean it tends to show that he has

[33:47] that character well let's

[33:50] table that until we talk about 404 okay

[33:53] because we're going to come into some

[33:54] problems with bad character

[33:56] we don't we generally don't allow that

[33:58] it does show that does show that but we

[34:00] just have decided we don't allow that

[34:01] but

[34:02] what else what do we do with weak

[34:05] evidence usually

[34:07] in trials

[34:10] what do the federal rules say about weak

[34:18] evidence

[34:20] wait hold on i'm sorry i can't tell he's

[34:21] talking oh yeah sorry i was freaking me

[34:23] out i thought it was you and

[34:24] your face wasn't moving at all say that

[34:26] again

[34:32] that's generally what we do with weak

[34:33] evidence right remember does it have any

[34:35] tendency that's a 401 language

[34:37] and if you read myers it's a pretty

[34:40] poorly written opinion

[34:41] right because he just all of this is

[34:43] just to say

[34:44] this evidence is pretty weak

[34:47] but what do we do with weak evidence we

[34:49] let it in and we let the other

[34:51] attorney argue about that it's weak

[34:54] the court didn't address what's the

[34:55] danger of unfair prejudice okay so

[34:58] weak evidence we let in if it has any

[35:00] tendency

[35:02] to prove a material fact any tendency

[35:06] unless it's kept up by rule 403 or some

[35:08] other rule now you would have to to

[35:10] really write a good opinion in myers

[35:12] do that balancing test what's the danger

[35:16] of unfair prejudice

[35:18] now if you did that i think it'd be

[35:19] pretty easy for mr myers

[35:21] to articulate a danger of unfair

[35:22] prejudice he said if you put this

[35:24] evidence in i'm going to have to get to

[35:25] explain to the jury

[35:27] i wasn't running because of the florida

[35:29] robbery i was running because of a

[35:30] pennsylvania bank robbery okay

[35:32] so ladies and gentlemen the jury glad we

[35:34] cleared that up you know i'll be over

[35:36] here waiting for you to equip me right

[35:39] that's a danger event for a prejudice if

[35:40] you're forcing the defendant to admit to

[35:42] some fact that could be held against him

[35:45] okay questions about that

[35:49] all right let's just look at one of

[35:50] these problems at the end of it

[35:52] 1.9 all right tj where's tj

[35:57] okay tj so this is page 63 and 64.

[36:02] guy is charged with murder um and the

[36:06] the prosecution wants to offer evidence

[36:07] that the defendant had fled from the

[36:09] scene of the crime

[36:12] and and the trial court allowed them to

[36:15] put this in over the defense objection

[36:16] right um again we've got this question

[36:19] of flight

[36:20] the defendant takes the stand and he he

[36:22] is asked by his lawyer

[36:23] why'd you leave the household after you

[36:25] found the decedent

[36:26] dead in the laundry room i was scared i

[36:29] was afraid i'd be arrested because of my

[36:30] priors

[36:31] i have prior convictions i went to

[36:33] prison for a robbery in 1977 i was in

[36:36] prison for six years

[36:37] okay the defendant is convicted after

[36:39] all of this

[36:41] um and you're arguing you're talking

[36:43] about the unfair prejudice okay

[36:45] first of all is there relevance to the

[36:47] fact that the evidence is that the

[36:49] defendant was seen leaving

[36:52] the scene of the crime at which the dead

[36:54] victim was found

[36:56] sir okay there's relevance right

[37:00] um how would you articulate the unfair

[37:04] prejudice

[37:05] caused by the prosecution presenting

[37:07] this evidence

[37:20] um

[37:23] okay and so how does that hurt i mean

[37:25] it's it's not unfair prejudice

[37:27] to show the defendant was fleeing from

[37:29] the scene of a homicide

[37:31] and therefore he is more likely than the

[37:33] random general population to have

[37:34] committed the homicide

[37:36] but what's the unfair prejudice you were

[37:38] getting there but i want you to be more

[37:39] clear about

[37:40] what's the what's the danger of unfair

[37:42] prejudice to the defendant that the jury

[37:44] would think

[37:44] oh he's leaving

[37:47] i think that's fair i think if you run

[37:49] away from a murder scene you got some

[37:50] explaining to do

[37:51] right so there's some probative value

[37:57] but he says that's not the prejudice i'm

[37:59] talking about

[38:00] because if this evidence of of so-called

[38:02] flight comes in

[38:04] i'm going to have to explain it

[38:07] and in that explaining i'm worried that

[38:09] there's going to be a danger of unfair

[38:10] prejudice

[38:13] what's he worried about he's probably

[38:15] worried about these prior convictions

[38:17] sure right okay right and we will learn

[38:20] we talk about 404 and later with

[38:22] rule 609 dealing with prior convictions

[38:26] we generally tell jurors in civil and

[38:29] criminal trials

[38:30] you are not allowed to use somebody's

[38:31] past acts

[38:33] to make conclusions about their

[38:35] character and how they are likely to

[38:37] behave in this specific incidents

[38:39] okay so right mr cutchall is saying

[38:43] although this may have some probitive

[38:45] value

[38:47] right which is say an innocent person

[38:48] upon finding a dead body is kind of

[38:50] going to do something other than run

[38:51] away

[38:52] a guilty person is going to run away so

[38:53] there is some probative value

[38:55] but he says you know what you're doing

[38:58] is forcing me to reveal

[38:59] my criminal history which the jury

[39:01] wouldn't otherwise know about

[39:03] so now we've got to do a balancing test

[39:05] what is the probative value of somebody

[39:06] running away from a crime scene

[39:08] a murder scene and is that substantially

[39:10] outweighed by a danger of unfair

[39:12] prejudice

[39:13] forcing him to reveal his criminal

[39:16] history

[39:21] what do you think the court should do

[39:29] i'll have to appoint a judge landon

[39:32] where's landon what did the court do

[39:43] admit the evidence even though i i just

[39:45] think that

[39:46] that

[39:49] i don't know if the prior convictions

[39:52] because they weren't violent i don't

[39:54] know if they necessarily

[39:59] okay okay good um it's also what was the

[40:03] uh

[40:03] it's a 12 year old non-violent that's a

[40:06] serious charge robbery

[40:08] um that's exactly what the court of

[40:10] appeals did in this case

[40:11] i mean the trial court let it in and the

[40:13] court of appeals affirmed that ruling

[40:14] and affirmed the conviction

[40:16] saying essentially yes um you know there

[40:18] was probative value

[40:20] right after all somebody running from a

[40:21] murder scene is probative significant

[40:24] probative value

[40:26] they said there is a danger of unfair

[40:27] prejudice but it was mitigated somewhat

[40:29] by the age of the convictions

[40:31] and the and the nature right it's a

[40:33] non-violent unarmed conviction

[40:35] it's not like if had you know three

[40:38] years earlier had been convicted of a

[40:40] uh violent homicide or something which

[40:42] might have had a different um

[40:44] outcome but yeah so the court of appeals

[40:46] went that direction that's

[40:47] that's kind of neither here nor there

[40:49] the point is

[40:50] to engage in that balancing test which

[40:52] forces you to say okay what what is

[40:54] exactly the power of the what is the

[40:56] probative value not just that it has

[40:58] some but how much does that stand up

[41:01] against the

[41:02] danger of unfair prejudice and is it

[41:04] going to be substantially outweighed by

[41:05] that danger

[41:06] okay i think this evidence should have

[41:08] come in too even though he's put in that

[41:10] position of

[41:11] having to reveal his criminal history

[41:14] okay

[41:14] questions great

[41:18] i mean it'd be better if you had

[41:19] questions but we'll move on

[41:22] um

[41:25] okay so people versus collins

[41:30] [Applause]

[41:33] sort of a classic evidence case you know

[41:35] it's one of these

[41:37] cases that everyone reads in law school

[41:38] it's in every every evidence case book

[41:40] that

[41:40] everybody uses in law school

[41:44] for those of you who are told there is

[41:46] no math in law school i would like to

[41:48] apologize

[41:49] especially for that appendix but more

[41:52] than anything as a

[41:54] history major i would like to sympathize

[41:55] with you

[41:57] in reading that thing and trying to make

[41:58] sense of it but it's actually a really

[42:00] important occasion that's a fun case too

[42:02] it's important you know spoiler alert

[42:06] why is this important because the

[42:08] analysis is basically exactly the same

[42:10] as dna evidence

[42:11] right you don't see this type of

[42:13] probability evidence

[42:15] thankfully in criminal courts anymore

[42:19] except you see it every day in cases

[42:21] that present dna evidence okay what are

[42:23] we talking about

[42:24] let's talk about the case a little bit

[42:26] um

[42:28] and it's kind of fun to go back you know

[42:30] that that little historical post script

[42:32] at the end is fun because you can kind

[42:33] of put yourself

[42:34] in the shoes of the prosecutor right

[42:36] zara do you remember when the prosecutor

[42:38] was assigned this case

[42:40] this robbery felony robbery like how

[42:42] long before the trial started

[42:47] yeah the morning right welcome to work

[42:51] we just picked a jury and they're

[42:52] waiting outside courtroom 302 so we go

[42:54] down and try this robbery case

[42:55] and he gets there and he's got some

[42:56] problems with his case right

[42:58] so it's a it's a per snatch case um

[43:02] in broad daylight of an elderly woman

[43:04] sympathetic victim

[43:05] and the question is just who did it

[43:08] and you've got these two prosecution

[43:10] witnesses who although sympathetic

[43:12] they've got some problems with their

[43:13] testimony right the victim juanita

[43:15] brooks

[43:17] elderly woman says she's pushed to the

[43:18] ground

[43:20] sees a blonde woman running away and

[43:23] then realizes her purse is gone

[43:26] and what does she know what does juanita

[43:28] brooks know what can she tell the

[43:29] prosecutor about who took her purse

[43:32] she says was a woman she was young

[43:35] about 145 pounds wearing something dark

[43:39] hair between dark blonde and light

[43:40] blonde and that's it

[43:44] okay but you've got another witness if

[43:46] you're the prostitute in this case john

[43:47] bass right the guy's across the street

[43:49] mowing his lawn

[43:50] something like that watering his flowers

[43:54] john bass says he's heard a lot of

[43:56] crying and screaming coming from the

[43:58] alley

[43:59] and he sees a woman run out of the alley

[44:00] and jump into a car

[44:02] okay what does he notice about the woman

[44:05] or the the car the car was yellow

[44:09] the woman was white slightly over five

[44:12] feet tall ordinary build

[44:13] dark blonde ponytail dark clothing

[44:17] the car was driven by an

[44:18] african-american man with mustache and

[44:20] beard

[44:22] okay and that's about it he sees a mug

[44:26] shot of janet collins

[44:28] and says the ponytail of the woman who

[44:30] ran out of the alley was just like the

[44:31] one

[44:32] worn by janet collins in this mug shot

[44:36] if you're the prosecutor it's not the

[44:39] greatest case you've ever been handed

[44:41] and you got three hours to get ready for

[44:43] it

[44:45] the the victim is unable to identify

[44:49] janet collins at trial and she of course

[44:52] never saw the driver of the car

[44:54] john bass um is able to identify both

[44:57] defendants but

[44:58] only very weakly right he said it might

[45:00] be them

[45:02] and then um

[45:05] he he uh says he saw the driver only

[45:08] fleetingly very uncertain identification

[45:10] and there was this issue was he wearing

[45:12] his proper glasses at the time

[45:14] so you got problems okay so the

[45:18] prosecutor realizes he's got these

[45:19] problems

[45:21] he goes back to the office they need

[45:23] lunch or something

[45:24] what am i going to do and then he says

[45:28] huh this is good creative

[45:32] litigation right well if i don't have

[45:34] direct evidence

[45:36] i'll have to be more creative because i

[45:39] have these little pieces of evidence

[45:41] and what are the odds it was somebody

[45:42] else other than janet malcolm collins

[45:46] incidentally how were janet and malcolm

[45:49] collins arrested

[45:50] if they drove away and nobody really got

[45:51] a good look at them

[45:53] well interesting little side note

[45:56] was this in the book about their son

[45:58] juanita brooks's son

[46:00] i don't think it was juanita brooks's

[46:02] son you know after they couldn't find

[46:05] the perpetrators got away he went around

[46:08] and canvassed

[46:09] neighbors in the area and said what did

[46:11] you see

[46:14] and one of the gas station attendant

[46:16] what did you see and then went around

[46:17] and said

[46:18] do any of you know about this couple

[46:20] african-american man

[46:22] white woman with a blonde ponytail drive

[46:24] a partially yellow car

[46:26] and one of the gas station attendants in

[46:27] the area said oh that sounds like janet

[46:28] and malcolm collins

[46:30] this is the victim's son he then goes to

[46:32] the police and the police then find

[46:34] janet malcolm collins is about four days

[46:36] after the robbery okay

[46:37] i digress um

[46:42] but so the prosecutor says okay let me

[46:44] exclude

[46:45] instead of having direct evidence that

[46:46] these two did it

[46:48] if i exclude everybody else as a suspect

[46:50] then

[46:51] you know by deduction it would be these

[46:54] two

[46:57] so what does he do let's see tj what

[46:59] does he do

[47:00] where's tj you're tj yes tj

[47:23] mathematical schema like what are the

[47:25] chances

[47:26] that it's this guy this woman

[47:29] and this car in this neighborhood at

[47:31] this time and then

[47:33] he kind of goes off and does his own map

[47:34] and says it's one in 12 million

[47:40] right okay yeah so he says okay what do

[47:43] i need

[47:44] i need some data and a mathematician

[47:47] and a calculator okay so where am i

[47:50] going to get a mathematician right he's

[47:51] got this brother-in-law or something

[47:53] who's a math mathematician

[47:54] just go call this guy at the local

[47:56] university what cal state whatever it is

[47:58] cal state long beach

[48:00] he calls up isn't this great you love

[48:02] this character in this drama daniel

[48:03] martinez

[48:05] assistant professor for all of two

[48:06] months and like

[48:08] incidentally this is why this fun case

[48:10] does this guy have nothing else to do

[48:11] like doesn't he have classes he shows up

[48:13] and they're like some prosecutor called

[48:15] he wants you at the courthouse at 9am

[48:16] he's like okay

[48:17] let's see what this is about and then he

[48:19] says on top of page 77 he says

[48:21] i went right to court but when he saw

[48:24] the crowd according he took a pause

[48:25] i had an inkling that i was stepping

[48:27] into something i really shouldn't

[48:29] okay now this is not a course in

[48:30] professional responsibility but

[48:32] let me tell you as future lawyers when

[48:34] you have that inkling

[48:36] back away from the courtroom and regroup

[48:39] and reassess whether you should do it

[48:40] but

[48:41] daniel martinez you know two months into

[48:43] his mathematician career

[48:45] doesn't have that instinct and goes in

[48:46] and does this and then the prosecutor

[48:48] you know so he's got the mathematician

[48:50] but he needs data

[48:53] how does he generate this data he kind

[48:56] of walks around the hallways of the

[48:57] prosecutor's office talking to people

[48:59] and this is um at the bottom of where is

[49:02] this in a footnote

[49:09] 10 page 68 and 69.

[49:13] he basically walks around his office and

[49:15] says hey

[49:16] you know shirley um

[49:20] out of all the cars in los angeles how

[49:22] many do you think of them are partly

[49:22] yellow

[49:24] she said i know one out of ten okay jots

[49:26] that down

[49:28] how many men in la do you think have

[49:29] mustaches

[49:32] one out of four okay shots that down

[49:34] okay

[49:35] so the product rule which he uses just

[49:37] using these two variables right

[49:39] so if there's a man in a mustache and a

[49:41] partly yellow automobile you'd multiply

[49:43] them and there's a one in 40 chance

[49:46] right that it's somebody other than

[49:48] malcolm collins

[49:50] but he goes on you see these six

[49:52] variables how many girls have ponytails

[49:55] one in ten

[49:59] blonde hair one and three negro man with

[50:02] beard one in ten

[50:05] interracial couple and car one in a

[50:07] thousand

[50:10] totals all these things up and he comes

[50:12] up with you know using

[50:13] the product rule what is it a one in 12

[50:16] million chance that it's not the

[50:17] collins's

[50:18] who was this interracial couple in a

[50:20] yellow car

[50:23] okay so let's unpack this a little bit

[50:28] um the product rule right this is it's

[50:30] uh defined in your book on page 68.

[50:33] the the the probability of the joint

[50:36] occurrence

[50:37] of a number of mutually independent

[50:38] events is equal to the product of the

[50:40] individual probabilities

[50:41] that each of the events will occur okay

[50:43] what um

[50:45] but the premise is that the guilty

[50:47] couple right the couple who engaged in

[50:48] this robbery

[50:50] had all of these six characteristics as

[50:53] a couple

[50:54] okay and if you multiply them all

[50:56] together

[50:57] the odds are 1 in 12 men that are

[50:59] randomly selected couple would share

[51:00] these characteristics so i guess you

[51:02] could say

[51:02] the odds are 1 in 12 million that the

[51:05] collins are not guilty

[51:07] and so the prosecutor goes into court in

[51:09] what was previously

[51:11] a very weak case and he says

[51:14] there's a 1 in 12 million chance that

[51:15] they got the wrong people and that

[51:17] ladies and gentlemen is proof beyond a

[51:19] reasonable doubt

[51:20] that's where he can fix um

[51:24] so what's wrong with that i mean are any

[51:26] any okay you have to answer now

[51:29] anybody major in math in college

[51:32] all right excellent henry yes

[51:36] really

[51:41] henry where's the henry did henry move

[51:45] were you there before okay i just know

[51:47] that this is my henry quadrant

[51:49] phillip is there anything like is the

[51:53] product rule like is the math legit here

[51:56] no why not relies on mutually

[52:00] independent things

[52:16] i can't just say

[52:20] okay that's good that makes more sense

[52:22] than that appendix i had to read

[52:24] that i've read 15 times now right

[52:27] or even the variables that they use

[52:29] right

[52:30] the second variable man with mustache

[52:33] the fifth one

[52:34] negro man with beard why are those not

[52:37] uh

[52:38] independent variables a lot of people

[52:40] like to wear mustache with their beard

[52:42] okay

[52:42] and if you have a beard with no mustache

[52:46] you know i'm not going to say

[52:49] okay i didn't hear what you said

[52:52] everybody's looking at somebody over

[52:54] here if look if you have a beard without

[52:56] a mustache

[52:57] that's fine okay

[53:01] it's unusual it's unusual

[53:05] it's funny because now these days nobody

[53:06] can tell if you have a beard with no

[53:08] mustache right

[53:09] nobody i might have a beard with no

[53:10] mustache huh and you're all laughing at

[53:12] me

[53:13] but it's not independent this is your

[53:15] point right um

[53:17] so there's a problem with the execution

[53:20] of this of this product rule

[53:24] but what else what else does the

[53:25] california supreme court says say is

[53:27] wrong with

[53:28] this approach yeah

[53:36] okay it assumes a 100 accuracy rate of

[53:39] these witnesses

[53:40] okay so whereas before we're like oh

[53:42] bass you can't really trust him he got a

[53:43] fleeting glimpse he wasn't wearing his

[53:44] glasses

[53:45] now we're like okay the witnesses i mean

[53:48] the the perpetrators

[53:49] definitely you know a 100 chance said a

[53:51] blonde ponytail and

[53:53] uh african-american guy with a beard etc

[53:55] etc right

[53:56] um so so you've got some problems again

[53:59] that's a problem with execution

[54:00] was there any other misgivings or things

[54:03] that the california supreme court was

[54:04] not

[54:05] happy with yeah okay

[54:08] say what you mean

[54:17] okay a distraction

[54:20] what what are some other language that

[54:21] this the california supreme court used

[54:24] to to sort of criticize this approach

[54:26] not the execution because there's plenty

[54:28] of criticism of that too

[54:29] but sort of more broadly this approach

[54:32] of using

[54:33] of using math yeah

[54:36] what do they

[54:40] [Music]

[54:49] okay great great so you've got these

[54:51] criticisms of this approach and all

[54:53] these different levels

[54:54] a they just got it wrong right and

[54:57] nobody's even saying like

[54:59] how they generate this data the

[55:01] secretaries at the los angeles public

[55:03] the prosecutor's office okay that's not

[55:06] really how you do it

[55:08] but you're right these are not

[55:09] independent variables

[55:11] you know they assume 100 accuracy but

[55:14] there's a broader critique here there's

[55:16] a broader worry i should put it that way

[55:19] the court begins by saying there is

[55:21] nothing

[55:23] incompatible categorically with this

[55:26] sort of probabilistic or mathematical

[55:28] evidence in a criminal trial

[55:29] right um they say this

[55:33] is admissible all right i'm sorry they

[55:35] did not say this type of evidence is

[55:37] inadmissible

[55:38] but they expressed a lot of worries

[55:39] about it

[55:42] so after saying we intend no disapproval

[55:44] or disparagement

[55:46] of mathematics as an auxiliary in the

[55:48] fact-finding processes of law

[55:51] they worry that mathematics is they put

[55:53] it could be a veritable sorcerer

[55:56] and should not be permitted to cast a

[55:57] spell over the jury right this is your

[55:59] sort of

[56:00] the way you put it was invading the

[56:02] province of the jury

[56:04] and then they go through each of these

[56:05] problems and that you all have have

[56:07] teased out here there's no evidence

[56:09] about the actual likelihood of each

[56:11] characteristic right

[56:12] is one in 10 of the cars in los angeles

[56:13] yellow i don't know

[56:16] this critique of the product rule only

[56:18] works if the

[56:19] variables are independent from each

[56:21] other um

[56:23] that is not was not done here

[56:26] there's no accounting for the human

[56:27] error um

[56:31] uh yeah and and so um they critique not

[56:34] only the application or the execution of

[56:36] this

[56:36] approach but the very idea of it and you

[56:39] get this sense that

[56:40] we're not saying categorically you can't

[56:42] do this right imagine you can and you

[56:44] can imagine a prosecutor

[56:46] you know going through all the right

[56:47] hoops and hiring the right experts and

[56:50] actually finding out how many yellow

[56:52] cars there are

[56:53] and making sure that the variables are

[56:55] all independent

[56:57] but the court says even with all of that

[56:59] there is something worrisome about it

[57:02] and they say um we worry about the jury

[57:05] being sort of overawed by this sort of

[57:07] evidence

[57:08] right now this case is is useful and

[57:11] relevant not because

[57:13] many prosecutors in the last 50 years

[57:14] have followed this guy's lead

[57:16] and he's how he's doing this but as the

[57:19] book says afterwards

[57:20] this is exactly what dna evidence is

[57:22] right

[57:24] um so dna evidence looks at certain

[57:27] characteristics of a perpetrator

[57:30] that is found through biological

[57:32] evidence right blood and whatever

[57:35] and compares that to the the dna of a

[57:38] suspect and it says okay we're going to

[57:41] look at these different alleles

[57:42] right and i'm not a biology person

[57:45] or a math person but but they say all

[57:48] right

[57:49] you know if this is uh what are the four

[57:51] things a g n t

[57:52] or something is that about right or your

[57:54] math who's science

[57:56] who knows about dna who studied biology

[57:59] in college

[58:00] yes kish okay

[58:03] what are the four letters a n c g

[58:06] a g agtc okay whatever um

[58:09] that was close right yeah 75 that's what

[58:12] i shoot for accuracy wise i'm just

[58:14] kidding

[58:15] but dna just compares these and excludes

[58:18] people right

[58:19] and so in a dna case

[58:22] you don't say and this is of course

[58:25] there's all kinds of litigation about

[58:26] this

[58:27] the expert shouldn't say i compared the

[58:29] dna

[58:30] to the perpetrator at the scene of the

[58:33] rape or homicide or whatever and it

[58:36] matches the dna of the defendant

[58:39] right they're not allowed to say that

[58:41] they're allowed to say

[58:43] something like the chances of it being

[58:45] somebody else being the contributor of

[58:47] this dna

[58:48] is one in 14 trillion or something like

[58:50] that

[58:51] is that a significant difference from it

[58:53] matches i don't know but

[58:55] you know it sort of stems from the same

[58:57] worry in collins

[58:59] that the mathematical or scientific or

[59:01] forensic evidence is going to take the

[59:02] place of the jury

[59:04] and sort of supplant their their

[59:06] reasoning

[59:09] okay so again you've got you know the

[59:12] question

[59:12] why was this evidence excluded why did

[59:14] the california supreme court say this

[59:15] evidence shouldn't come in

[59:16] because what do we usually do with weak

[59:19] or problematic or flawed evidence

[59:22] put it in front of the jury and let that

[59:23] be exposed by the the adversary right

[59:26] that's what our system is set up to do

[59:28] you know weak evidence generally is

[59:30] going to come in

[59:31] even if it's unreliable or incorrect if

[59:34] a witness is

[59:36] suspected of not telling the truth we

[59:38] trust the jurors to figure that out

[59:41] with the assistance of the adversarial

[59:43] lawyer in the system

[59:45] so what's different here right the court

[59:47] clearly took a different approach here

[59:51] one thing that we've talked about is

[59:53] this apparent infallibility of the

[59:55] probabilistic evidence

[59:56] right when you get mr dr martinez the

[59:59] mathematician

[01:00:00] to say the chances are one in 12 million

[01:00:02] that it wasn't mr and mrs collins

[01:00:06] it seems like he's saying i an expert

[01:00:08] and finding them guilty

[01:00:09] and you jury must simply follow along we

[01:00:12] have the same concerns of dna evidence

[01:00:14] but also the jury's likely inability to

[01:00:16] spot the deficiencies in this evidence

[01:00:19] right they don't always have a phillip

[01:00:21] in the jury room with them

[01:00:23] to explain about independent variables

[01:00:25] and dependent variables in the product

[01:00:27] rule etc

[01:00:29] and you you saw in that you know his the

[01:00:31] postscript after the

[01:00:32] collins case um the defense lawyer

[01:00:35] saying i knew something was wrong but i

[01:00:36] couldn't really figure out what it was

[01:00:37] something like that so you've got a

[01:00:41] defense counsel's likely inability to

[01:00:43] immediately point out the logical

[01:00:44] weaknesses of the evidence okay so this

[01:00:47] and we'll we'll talk about this at the

[01:00:48] very end of this course we talk about

[01:00:49] expert evidence

[01:00:50] expert testimony is viewed somewhat the

[01:00:53] courts are going to be very careful

[01:00:54] but what they let experts say and and

[01:00:57] what opinions experts are allowed to

[01:00:58] give

[01:01:01] but the lesson from this and which we'll

[01:01:03] get into when we talk about

[01:01:04] expert evidence in november is that this

[01:01:07] flawed mathematical or scientific or

[01:01:09] expert evidence is thought to have

[01:01:11] a much greater potential to mislead or

[01:01:13] confuse the jury

[01:01:14] or invade the province of the jury

[01:01:16] you'll hear that when we talk about

[01:01:18] expert testimony okay

[01:01:25] questions about that great

[01:01:29] okay like i say it's a very useful case

[01:01:33] to know about

[01:01:34] not because um this happens but because

[01:01:37] of the analogy the dna evidence

[01:01:40] we won't have time to get into dna

[01:01:42] evidence you know we could do a whole

[01:01:44] semester-long course on expert evidence

[01:01:46] and we probably should at this school we

[01:01:47] don't

[01:01:48] um but it's fascinating you know and

[01:01:50] what

[01:01:51] how to attack dna evidence um you know

[01:01:54] as as a

[01:01:55] lawyer who has had to do that i can tell

[01:01:58] you it's almost always

[01:02:00] easier to attack the human application

[01:02:03] of the science

[01:02:04] than it is to attack the science right

[01:02:06] if you've got a dna case

[01:02:09] um you know it's a it's a pretty uphill

[01:02:11] battle

[01:02:12] to go to a jury and say you know this

[01:02:13] dna stuff is just bunk

[01:02:16] although i don't know increasingly maybe

[01:02:18] you'd find jurors who

[01:02:20] are skeptical of science you know i

[01:02:22] don't know i

[01:02:23] don't know let me diagram let me not

[01:02:25] digress

[01:02:27] but back in the old days when people

[01:02:29] believed in science at least

[01:02:31] it was certainly easier to say there was

[01:02:34] some problem with the collection of this

[01:02:35] evidence or cross-contamination or there

[01:02:37] may have been

[01:02:38] then to say this science the whole idea

[01:02:40] of you know the science doesn't work

[01:02:42] okay edit that part out pete

[01:02:47] okay so let's move on

[01:02:50] um stipulations remember

[01:02:54] um the first week of class

[01:02:57] i was talking about what are we doing

[01:02:59] here what is what is this whole study of

[01:03:00] evidence about and if you imagine two

[01:03:02] big boxes the facts of the world

[01:03:05] and the facts of the case right and as a

[01:03:08] litigator

[01:03:09] you want to control what's in this box

[01:03:11] you can't control facts of the world

[01:03:13] because that's already happened

[01:03:15] but as a litigator you're controlling

[01:03:17] the doorway that goes from the facts of

[01:03:19] the world into the facts of the case box

[01:03:21] and you want to you know if you want

[01:03:23] some evidence and you want to figure out

[01:03:24] how to get it through the door

[01:03:25] and if you want it out you want to

[01:03:26] figure out how to keep that door closed

[01:03:29] captioning not

[01:03:42] both of these available trying to keep

[01:03:44] evidence away from the jury

[01:03:47] so in jackson you've got again it's

[01:03:49] another flight case

[01:03:52] alias in flight um

[01:03:56] but but mr uh jackson is is saying

[01:03:59] um you know he's charged with robbing a

[01:04:01] bank in new york

[01:04:02] he's caught a little while later in

[01:04:04] georgia so it sounds just like myers

[01:04:05] right

[01:04:06] um and in georgia he was using an alias

[01:04:10] okay so the prosecution wants to say

[01:04:11] well we should be allowed to tell the

[01:04:13] jury

[01:04:13] because it's relevant it tends to make

[01:04:15] the existence of a material fact more or

[01:04:16] less probable in the absence of this

[01:04:18] evidence

[01:04:19] that he fled new york went to georgia

[01:04:22] and he was using a fake name

[01:04:24] okay i'm not going to make you go

[01:04:26] through the chain of inferences because

[01:04:28] we've done that already

[01:04:30] and the defense says um well we're going

[01:04:32] to try to poke holes in this

[01:04:34] you know the the chain of inferences one

[01:04:37] month before the robbery indictment was

[01:04:38] handed up

[01:04:40] he the defendant mr myers was indicted

[01:04:41] for assaults in an entirely different

[01:04:43] case

[01:04:44] okay the defense is saying therefore

[01:04:46] even if you consider it flight

[01:04:48] and even if you accept that flight shows

[01:04:50] a consciousness of guilt of something

[01:04:53] it could be about some entirely

[01:04:54] unrelated case and so it shouldn't be

[01:04:56] considered relevant to this case

[01:04:59] also the defendant's arrest in georgia

[01:05:02] was due to another robbery

[01:05:04] okay uncharged in the in the case we're

[01:05:06] talking about the new york case

[01:05:09] and so if the government is allowed to

[01:05:11] get into that the apprehension in

[01:05:13] georgia

[01:05:14] they're going to want to get into this

[01:05:15] whole arrest for the other robbery

[01:05:17] now remember i said we were going to

[01:05:18] have a little preview of rule 404

[01:05:21] let's see what that says 404b

[01:05:27] evidence of a crime wrong or other act

[01:05:32] is not admissible to prove a person's

[01:05:34] character in order to show that on a

[01:05:37] particular occasion the person acted in

[01:05:38] accordance with

[01:05:39] that character okay that's all we need

[01:05:42] that's again just a preview

[01:05:44] but generally speaking the rule is we

[01:05:46] you can't use character evidence in any

[01:05:48] trial

[01:05:49] right so and so is a liar therefore he's

[01:05:53] probably in the lying now

[01:05:55] okay now that's subject to a whole bunch

[01:05:56] of exceptions which we're going to talk

[01:05:58] about next week

[01:05:59] but that's the general rule and so mr

[01:06:02] jackson says um you know

[01:06:07] with the government explaining about why

[01:06:09] i was in in georgia

[01:06:11] that's essentially going to be inviting

[01:06:13] the jury to engage in this

[01:06:14] character-based reasoning

[01:06:16] well if you're robbed bank in georgia he

[01:06:18] sure seems like the kind of guy who robs

[01:06:20] banks

[01:06:21] which sure seems like he was more likely

[01:06:23] to rob a bank in new york than if we

[01:06:25] hadn't known about that

[01:06:26] right and and so that's the type of

[01:06:28] reasoning that 404

[01:06:30] excludes and so he says we can't do it

[01:06:33] for that reason too

[01:06:34] okay so it's sort of a familiar fact

[01:06:37] pattern here right the flight

[01:06:39] the proponent is saying flight leads

[01:06:42] to actual guilt therefore it's relevant

[01:06:44] material and the defendant the opponent

[01:06:46] saying no

[01:06:47] that's too weak a a a chain to

[01:06:50] to do that the judge here and you can

[01:06:53] look um

[01:06:55] you know it's laid out for you in page

[01:06:57] 81

[01:06:58] the government's argument flight

[01:06:59] therefore guilty mind respecting the

[01:07:01] bank robbery therefore guilt of that

[01:07:02] robbery

[01:07:03] i'd say they skipped a couple steps but

[01:07:05] yeah you know that's the you know

[01:07:06] basically the chain

[01:07:08] um and the judge saying okay i get it

[01:07:11] there is some probative value there is a

[01:07:14] danger of unfair prejudice

[01:07:16] and he says well let me come up with a

[01:07:18] sort of a creative solution

[01:07:20] okay jackson if you're

[01:07:23] willing to stipulate

[01:07:26] what does he make him stipulate let's

[01:07:27] see he says um

[01:07:32] if you stipulate that you were in

[01:07:34] georgia and that you were using a fake

[01:07:36] name

[01:07:37] i'm going to exclude the evidence of the

[01:07:40] robbery

[01:07:41] that happened in florida so we started

[01:07:43] splitting it down the middle right and

[01:07:44] then you see the trial judge saying

[01:07:46] i'm going to try to let in sort of the

[01:07:49] probative value

[01:07:51] and keep out the stuff that has the

[01:07:52] danger of unfair prejudice okay

[01:07:54] um and you know this is

[01:07:58] some version of this kind of judicially

[01:08:00] imposed stipulation happens all the time

[01:08:02] we've talked about it cropping

[01:08:04] photographs limiting the way

[01:08:06] that a particular exhibit is shown to

[01:08:07] the jury editing documents or redacting

[01:08:10] documents instructing witnesses to stay

[01:08:12] away from certain topics

[01:08:14] so you see judges trying to kind of

[01:08:16] craft solutions

[01:08:18] that allows a piece of evidence in for

[01:08:20] whatever marginal probative value it has

[01:08:23] without letting in the danger of unfair

[01:08:25] prejudice okay

[01:08:28] of course the danger in that as this

[01:08:29] judge himself recognizes

[01:08:31] is you wind up with what he calls a

[01:08:32] two-dimensional cartoon rendition

[01:08:35] of a three-dimensional world okay so

[01:08:37] he's sort of saying even this is what

[01:08:39] he's doing he's saying judges need to be

[01:08:40] careful

[01:08:41] of manipulating the facts too much to

[01:08:43] present an altered view of what happened

[01:08:46] okay one interesting thing about that

[01:08:53] in the middle i guess the third

[01:08:55] paragraph on page 81

[01:08:58] the judge is evaluating this evidence

[01:09:00] proposed evidence

[01:09:03] and he says somebody you know you you

[01:09:06] guys tell me you reacted to this

[01:09:09] the probative value of the defendant's

[01:09:10] conduct is heightened by the posture of

[01:09:13] the government's proof

[01:09:15] it is apparent that the surveillance

[01:09:16] photographs and the eyewitness testimony

[01:09:18] are not likely to make out a completely

[01:09:19] positive identification of defendant

[01:09:22] the government therefore has legitimate

[01:09:24] need for corroborative evidence

[01:09:26] on balance then the georgia evidence

[01:09:28] have significant probative value

[01:09:33] any any reaction to that yeah

[01:09:37] i think it's kind of unfair

[01:09:44] this idea to bolster the government's

[01:09:48] case

[01:09:52] i don't either

[01:09:59] it's always struck me as a completely

[01:10:01] bizarre paragraph and then incidentally

[01:10:03] the judge who wrote this jack weinstein

[01:10:05] is like one of the most well-respected

[01:10:06] district judges in the world trial

[01:10:08] judges in the country

[01:10:09] and in fact he's the author of a

[01:10:10] treatise on evidence that i will

[01:10:11] recommend you weinstein and evidence

[01:10:13] but that makes no sense

[01:10:16] because he seems to be saying what's the

[01:10:19] probative value of this evidence of

[01:10:20] flight

[01:10:21] well the rest of the evidence is really

[01:10:23] weak so

[01:10:24] you know the the since the government

[01:10:26] really needs something

[01:10:28] it has significant probative value

[01:10:29] that's not how it's supposed to work

[01:10:31] you know it has whatever probative value

[01:10:33] it has on its own

[01:10:35] but the judge seems to be saying you

[01:10:36] know because the rest of the evidence is

[01:10:38] inconclusive

[01:10:39] the government really needs this piece

[01:10:40] of evidence yeah

[01:10:42] but isn't he trying to correct like the

[01:10:44] jury from actually being misled when you

[01:10:46] actually know that he was in this state

[01:10:48] and they don't have another piece of

[01:10:49] evidence to introduce that

[01:10:51] shows without a doubt that he was there

[01:10:53] okay great

[01:10:54] and that's where we get into alternative

[01:10:55] means of proof right and

[01:10:57] thank you so much because let's get into

[01:10:58] old chief okay because old chief gets

[01:11:00] right into that

[01:11:01] and yes i think in part that's what

[01:11:03] because

[01:11:04] the part of the stipulation that

[01:11:05] weinstein is doing is saying well it

[01:11:07] would be unfair

[01:11:08] to just keep out altogether the fact

[01:11:11] that he was in georgia

[01:11:12] using a fake name because that does have

[01:11:14] some probability value okay

[01:11:16] i mean so he's trying to kind of have it

[01:11:18] both ways right because of course if he

[01:11:19] keeps all that

[01:11:20] out then here's mr jackson just sitting

[01:11:22] in brooklyn like

[01:11:24] you know here's where i have been all

[01:11:25] along you can't really say that but

[01:11:27] he would be maybe inviting that

[01:11:29] inference

[01:11:30] okay old chief and i said we're going to

[01:11:32] finish a little early and i know we are

[01:11:36] another really interesting case um

[01:11:39] you know skirting the the line here

[01:11:41] between 403 danger of unfair prejudice

[01:11:43] and the 404 ban on character evidence

[01:11:45] that we'll get into next week

[01:11:50] you know here we've got again a

[01:11:51] defendant who is trying to keep the jury

[01:11:54] from learning something okay mr old

[01:11:57] chief is charged with among other things

[01:11:59] being a felon in possession of a firearm

[01:12:01] but let me not skip over among other

[01:12:03] things because it's relevant to the case

[01:12:05] he's charged with assault with a

[01:12:06] dangerous weapon being a felon in

[01:12:08] possession of a firearm

[01:12:09] and use of a firearm in relation to a

[01:12:11] crime of violence

[01:12:13] okay problem arises with that felon in

[01:12:15] possession of a firearm charge

[01:12:18] because one of the elements of that as

[01:12:20] the name suggests is that the person

[01:12:22] has to have already been convicted of a

[01:12:24] felony

[01:12:25] and so the government says well that's

[01:12:28] easy i've got this certified copy of

[01:12:30] prior conviction i'm going to just you

[01:12:32] know introduce that and

[01:12:33] that's how we're going to prove that

[01:12:34] part of our case

[01:12:37] now the problem as mr old chief sees it

[01:12:39] is the nature of that prior felony

[01:12:41] conviction it's not just any prior

[01:12:42] felony conviction

[01:12:44] it's for aggravated assault which you

[01:12:45] know essentially is assault resulting in

[01:12:47] serious bodily injury

[01:12:50] so again you've got some probative value

[01:12:52] and some danger of unfair prejudice mr

[01:12:53] old chief says when the jury hears about

[01:12:55] that

[01:12:57] they're going to convict me of all this

[01:12:58] stuff right i'm going to certainly be

[01:13:00] convicted of assault with a dangerous

[01:13:01] weapon

[01:13:03] if they hear that i've been convicted

[01:13:05] already of aggravated assault

[01:13:07] and so mr old chief says tell you what

[01:13:09] we'll do

[01:13:11] i agree to stipulate that i am a felon

[01:13:15] and that you know conclusively proves

[01:13:17] that part of your case prosecution

[01:13:19] um and

[01:13:22] in doing so uh he moves in lemonade for

[01:13:25] an order preventing the government

[01:13:27] from mentioning anything about that

[01:13:28] prior conviction other than the fact

[01:13:30] of the prior conviction okay

[01:13:32] incidentally what i mean motion

[01:13:34] eliminating what's emotion in limiting

[01:13:37] yeah um

[01:13:42] exactly exactly it's just a motion ahead

[01:13:44] of time

[01:13:45] you know when the jury's not here yet

[01:13:47] say by the way judge

[01:13:48] once this gets rolling i don't want them

[01:13:50] to be allowed to mention anything about

[01:13:52] this aggravated assault conviction yeah

[01:13:53] motion limited pre-trial ruling

[01:13:57] okay but the prosecution says thanks but

[01:14:00] no thanks

[01:14:01] we'd like to do this our way and our way

[01:14:03] is to introduce this certified judgment

[01:14:05] conviction order

[01:14:06] that says aggravated assault resulting a

[01:14:08] serious bodily injury

[01:14:10] okay so a few questions did mr old

[01:14:13] chiefs offer to stipulate

[01:14:16] render the government's proposed piece

[01:14:18] of evidence

[01:14:19] irrelevant under rule 401

[01:14:39] okay there is some uh intuitive appeal

[01:14:42] to your argument

[01:14:43] okay um in law school that's sort of a

[01:14:46] preamble to me saying

[01:14:48] and let's keep thinking about this but

[01:14:50] there is right and and

[01:14:51] you know in a broader sense you're right

[01:14:54] but no my question was a precise one

[01:14:56] does it render the piece the proposed

[01:14:59] piece of evidence irrelevant

[01:15:01] and you answered a slightly different

[01:15:02] one i think

[01:15:04] which was there are other ways to do it

[01:15:06] but is it relevant

[01:15:08] under rule 401

[01:15:11] okay and and how do we know that well

[01:15:14] the language of rule 401

[01:15:15] i won't go over it again but certainly

[01:15:18] it has a tendency

[01:15:19] maybe okay i will certainly

[01:15:22] the certified copy of that prior

[01:15:24] aggravated assault conviction

[01:15:26] has a tendency to make it more likely

[01:15:28] than in the absence of evidence that he

[01:15:29] has been convicted of a felony

[01:15:31] and certainly that's a material effect

[01:15:32] because it's one of the two things they

[01:15:33] have to prove for that charge

[01:15:35] so sure it's definitely relevant under

[01:15:37] rule 401

[01:15:38] and in fact those of you who have read

[01:15:40] the advisory committee notes which is

[01:15:41] all of you right jake

[01:15:45] uh the advisory committee knows rule 401

[01:15:47] says

[01:15:48] the fact to which the evidence is

[01:15:50] directed need not

[01:15:52] be in dispute okay

[01:15:55] so a defendant cannot render a piece of

[01:15:57] evidence irrelevant just by saying i

[01:15:58] don't dispute that

[01:15:59] that's what mr old chief essentially

[01:16:01] tried to do

[01:16:03] but just because it's relevant as we all

[01:16:06] know

[01:16:07] does not mean it's admissible which is

[01:16:09] where we turn to rule 403

[01:16:12] which is where landon right

[01:16:15] is much more he's going to have much

[01:16:17] more success

[01:16:20] because rule 403 in the advisory

[01:16:22] committee notes

[01:16:23] says when a court considers whether to

[01:16:26] exclude on grounds of unfair prejudice

[01:16:29] the availability of other means of proof

[01:16:31] may be an appropriate factor

[01:16:33] okay we're not talking about relevance

[01:16:35] here it's clearly relevant

[01:16:37] by when i say it that certified copy of

[01:16:41] conviction that says aggravated assault

[01:16:42] resulting in serious bodily injury

[01:16:44] is relevant but we're talking about

[01:16:47] danger of unfair prejudice

[01:16:49] the unfair prejudice is not like oh if

[01:16:50] the jury sees that then they're going to

[01:16:52] know he's a felon

[01:16:53] that's fair prejudice right that's what

[01:16:55] they're entitled to know

[01:16:56] the danger of unfair prejudice comes

[01:16:58] from ooh

[01:17:00] he aggravatedly assaulted somebody a

[01:17:02] couple years ago which means he probably

[01:17:03] did at this time too that's the danger

[01:17:05] of unfair prejudice

[01:17:06] so under rule 403 the alternative means

[01:17:09] of proof or other means of proof

[01:17:11] is something that the courts should

[01:17:12] consider okay so now we're talking about

[01:17:14] what's the

[01:17:15] we're doing the balancing test what's

[01:17:16] the marginal probative value

[01:17:18] right so this can be proved two ways

[01:17:21] one i mr old chief admit that i'm a

[01:17:24] felon

[01:17:25] ladies and gentlemen jury you are

[01:17:26] instructed that mr lg is a felon

[01:17:30] or here he is convicted of aggravatedly

[01:17:33] assaulting

[01:17:34] so and so two years ago resulting in

[01:17:36] serious bodily injury

[01:17:38] what's the marginal probative value of

[01:17:40] the government's proposed piece of

[01:17:41] evidence

[01:17:42] versus the stipulation pretty slight

[01:17:45] right

[01:17:45] pretty slight and the danger of unfair

[01:17:47] prejudice core found

[01:17:49] is pretty large um

[01:17:52] okay so so just a suitor in that opinion

[01:17:54] you know he says there's two ways

[01:17:56] that a court could look at a proposed

[01:17:58] piece of evidence one is in isolation

[01:18:00] right viewed as an island he says or the

[01:18:02] other is in context of all the other

[01:18:04] evidence in the case

[01:18:05] and the court the majority in old chief

[01:18:07] adopts this contextual approach to the

[01:18:09] 403 analysis

[01:18:11] and outlines a two-part process

[01:18:15] first does the particular item of

[01:18:17] evidence raise the danger of unfair

[01:18:18] prejudice

[01:18:19] of course if the answer is no you're

[01:18:21] done okay

[01:18:23] but if the answer is yes the court says

[01:18:26] if so the judge should evaluate the

[01:18:28] degrees of probative value

[01:18:29] and unfair prejudice not only for the

[01:18:31] item in question but for any actually

[01:18:33] available substitutes as well

[01:18:35] and so in that case that is essentially

[01:18:37] just doing what the advisory committee

[01:18:38] notes said to do

[01:18:40] and in that case the court says that

[01:18:43] because of the actually available

[01:18:44] alternative

[01:18:45] the probative value of the actual you

[01:18:48] know the certified conviction

[01:18:50] was very very slight and so should not

[01:18:52] have been admitted

[01:18:54] okay so what's the rule in old chief can

[01:18:57] the defendant stipulate away damaging

[01:18:59] parts of the prosecution's case

[01:19:03] in most situations no right the court is

[01:19:06] very clear and old chief that the

[01:19:07] general

[01:19:08] rule is that a party

[01:19:12] is able to present its case in whatever

[01:19:14] way it wants to

[01:19:15] okay um but the court limits this in

[01:19:18] this prior conviction evidence

[01:19:20] because it says there's a particular

[01:19:22] danger of unfair prejudice when you're

[01:19:24] introducing evidence of prior

[01:19:25] convictions of a criminal defendant

[01:19:28] um okay

[01:19:32] so so it's an interesting case because

[01:19:34] you've got language cutting both ways

[01:19:35] there the

[01:19:36] the court says that you know ordinarily

[01:19:39] the prosecution or the party with the

[01:19:41] burden of proof or a burden of proof is

[01:19:43] going to be able to prove its case

[01:19:44] however it wants to

[01:19:45] but in certain situations and and uh

[01:19:48] this one more than any there is such a

[01:19:50] danger of unfair prejudice that court

[01:19:51] should be very cautious about this

[01:19:53] and and because that alternative means

[01:19:55] of of proving a fact

[01:19:57] keep out the the the uh piece of

[01:20:00] evidence that has a danger of unfair

[01:20:01] prejudice

[01:20:02] all right questions

[01:20:05] questions yes so you said that the

[01:20:08] opinion was a two-part test and the

[01:20:10] first one

[01:20:11] was does the evidence and then you look

[01:20:14] at the degree's appropriate value

[01:20:22] yes i mean i think the idea about here's

[01:20:24] the takeaway i think from old g for that

[01:20:26] two-part test

[01:20:27] if there's a danger for prejudice you're

[01:20:29] you're looking at the idea of the

[01:20:30] marginal probative value

[01:20:32] so like what's the difference in

[01:20:33] probative value between

[01:20:36] proposed offer of proof a and b right

[01:20:39] and that's the second part of the test

[01:20:41] is is what's the extra probative value

[01:20:44] you get

[01:20:45] if any from the proponents

[01:20:48] means of proving it does that make sense

[01:20:50] okay

[01:20:52] other questions

[01:20:54] [Music]

[01:20:56] do you mean you compare the relative

[01:20:58] program judicial

[01:21:00] effect of the one evidence with the

[01:21:02] proposed evidence

[01:21:03] yes right so in this case think of that

[01:21:06] what are the two means of proving that

[01:21:07] prior conviction

[01:21:08] one is old chief stipulation instruction

[01:21:10] of the jury

[01:21:11] you are instructed that he has been

[01:21:12] afraid of a felony and this is the

[01:21:14] prosecution's

[01:21:15] i shouldn't put it above it because it

[01:21:16] doesn't actually add anything the

[01:21:18] prosecution's

[01:21:19] uh proposal which is give the conviction

[01:21:23] uh the certified copy the conviction

[01:21:24] which says the actual felony

[01:21:26] and so the court says what's the

[01:21:27] marginal probative value of that

[01:21:29] it's really none and there's a much

[01:21:31] higher danger of unfair prejudice

[01:21:34] all right on friday we're going to talk

[01:21:36] about the specialized relevance rules

[01:21:40] which is really think of it this way

[01:21:42] legislative determinations

[01:21:44] of this 403 rule right there are certain

[01:21:46] there's about five of these different

[01:21:48] specialized relevance rules

[01:21:49] in which the legislature has said in

[01:21:52] these instances we are simply

[01:21:53] determining

[01:21:54] uh that the danger of unfair prejudice

[01:21:56] substantially outweighs the prohibitive

[01:21:58] value that's one way of looking at these

[01:21:59] okay

[01:22:00] all right see you on friday