30. Should the judge grant a motion to strike the medical examiner's testimony?

In a prosecution for aggravated battery, a police officer testified that when he arrested the defendant, he took a knife from the defendant and delivered it to the medical examiner. The medical examiner testified that the knife blade was consistent with the victim's wound but admitted on cross-examination that any number of other knives could also have caused the wound.

No, because the probative worth of this evidence is for the jury to assess
Yes, because in light of the medical examiner’s admission, his testimony has insufficient probative value
Yes, because the medical examiner could not state the probability that the wound was caused by the defendant’s knife
Yes, because the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice

« PreviousSkipNext »

Show clarification Download PDF

A is correct. This evidence has some probative value because it links the knife in the defendant's possession to the type of knife that could have caused the victim's wound. The evidence is not very strong, because other knives could also have caused the wound. But how much weight to give to the evidence is a decision for the jury. Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) requires only that evidence have any tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Thus, to be relevant, evidence need only have some probative value in establishing a fact.

B is incorrect. Evidence meets the relevancy requirement of Rule 401 of the FRE if it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. The medical examiner's testimony, therefore, would be admissible.

C is incorrect. Rule 401 of the FRE does not require such a statement of probability. The medical examiner's testimony does not have to establish that the defendant's knife caused the wound by any particular standard, such as beyond a reasonable doubt, by clear and convincing evidence, or by a preponderance of the evidence. It need only have probative value to be admissible.

D is incorrect. Rule 401 of the FRE has a very broad and liberal standard of what is relevant: evidence that has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Rule 403 allows evidence to be excluded under certain circumstances. But Rule 403 establishes what might be described as a presumption of admissibility, because evidence meeting Rule 401's definition of relevance is admissible unless its probative value is «substantially outweighed» by the danger of unfair prejudice. Here there does not appear to be any significant degree of unfair prejudice, let alone enough to «substantially outweigh» the value of the medical examiner's testimony.

Comments (0)

There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it

30. Should the judge grant a motion to strike the medical examiner's testimony?

Comments (0)

Trial period expired