http://federalevidence.com/blog The Federal Evidence Review is an electronic legal journal that highlights recent federal evidence cases and developments. In one convenient place, the Federal Evidence Review's monthly summary, analysis and insight keeps readers current on the latest developments in the law of evidence as determined by the federal courts. en http://federalevidence.com/blog/2014/august/dealing-failure-provide-written-notice-under-fre-90211 <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-post-image"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="filefield-file"><img class="filefield-icon field-icon-image-png" alt="image/png icon" src="http://federalevidence.com/sites/all/modules/filefield/icons/image-x-generic.png" /><a href="http://federalevidence.com/files/SecondCircuitMap_5.png" type="image/png; length=18934">SecondCircuitMap.png</a></div> </div> </div> </div> <h3> In mortgage fraud prosecution, government provided oral notice of its intent to introduce self-authenticating business records but failed to provide written notice as required under <a href="http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence#Rule902">FRE 902(11)</a>; Second Circuit concludes that the record supported a finding that actual notice had been provided, while "caution[ing] that parties fail to comply with the Rule 902(11)’s written notice requirements at their own risk," in <a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2014/08Aug/US.v.Komasa.pdf"><cite>United States v. Komasa</cite></a>, _ F.3d _ (2d Cir. Aug. 28, 2014) (Nos. 13–1534–cr(L); 13–1550–cr(Con))<br /> </h3> <span class="read-more"><a href="/blog/2014/august/dealing-failure-provide-written-notice-under-fre-90211"><strong>Read more</strong></a></span> Rule 902(11) Certified Domestic Records Rule 803(6) - Records of regularly conducted activity Tue, 02 Sep 2014 22:24:00 +0000 Editor 2061 at http://federalevidence.com http://federalevidence.com/blog/2014/august/celebrating-labor-day <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-post-image"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="filefield-file"><img class="filefield-icon field-icon-image-jpeg" alt="image/jpeg icon" src="http://federalevidence.com/sites/all/modules/filefield/icons/image-x-generic.png" /><a href="http://federalevidence.com/files/Flags.JPG" type="image/jpeg; length=37229">Flags.JPG</a></div> </div> </div> </div> <p><center><br /> <h3> The Federal Evidence Blog <br />returns on <br />Tuesday, September 2, 2014.<br /> Enjoy the Labor Day holiday.</h3> <p> </p></center></p> <p> Labor Day is celebrated on the first Monday in September. <em>See</em> <a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2009/11-Nov/Federal_Holidays_Statute.pdf">5 U.S.C. § 6103</a> (federal holidays). </p> Mon, 01 Sep 2014 20:55:33 +0000 Editor 2059 at http://federalevidence.com http://federalevidence.com/blog/2014/august/bursting-mailbox-rule-presumption <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-post-image"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="filefield-file"><img class="filefield-icon field-icon-image-jpeg" alt="image/jpeg icon" src="http://federalevidence.com/sites/all/modules/filefield/icons/image-x-generic.png" /><a href="http://federalevidence.com/files/Mailbox_0.jpg" type="image/jpeg; length=5380">Mailbox.jpg</a></div> </div> </div> </div> <h3> Third Circuit considers the operation of the mailbox rule presumption under <a href="http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence#Rule301">FRE 301</a> and the circumstances in which the presumption may be rebutted; circuit distinguishes between strong and weak presumptions; summary judgment was vacated after the circuit concluded that the district court misapplied the presumption, in <a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2014/08Aug/Lupyan.v.Corinthian.pdf"><cite>Lupyan v. Corinthian Colleges Inc.</cite></a>, _ F.3d _ (3d Cir. Aug. 5, 2014) (No. 13–1843)<br /> </h3> <span class="read-more"><a href="/blog/2014/august/bursting-mailbox-rule-presumption"><strong>Read more</strong></a></span> Rule 301 Civil Presumptions in General Fri, 29 Aug 2014 20:59:34 +0000 Editor 2060 at http://federalevidence.com http://federalevidence.com/blog/2014/september/conviction-vacated-after-trial-court-improperly-solicited-partial-verdict <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-post-image"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="filefield-file"><img class="filefield-icon field-icon-image-png" alt="image/png icon" src="http://federalevidence.com/sites/all/modules/filefield/icons/image-x-generic.png" /><a href="http://federalevidence.com/files/SeventhCircuitMap_13.png" type="image/png; length=21545">SeventhCircuitMap.png</a></div> </div> </div> </div> <h3> Seventh Circuit vacates conviction after the trial court "invited a partial verdict while deliberations remained ongoing and before the jury indicated that it was truly deadlocked as to any count"; circuit provides guidance into how to address these circumstances, in <a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2014/08Aug/US.v.Moore.pdf"><cite>United States v. Moore</cite></a>, _ F.3d _ (7th Cir. Aug. 19, 2014) (No. 13-2905) </h3> <span class="read-more"><a href="/blog/2014/september/conviction-vacated-after-trial-court-improperly-solicited-partial-verdict"><strong>Read more</strong></a></span> Rule 606(b) Inquiry into Validity of Verdict Thu, 28 Aug 2014 13:09:30 +0000 Editor 2063 at http://federalevidence.com http://federalevidence.com/blog/2014/august/premature-juror-deliberations <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-post-image"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="filefield-file"><img class="filefield-icon field-icon-image-png" alt="image/png icon" src="http://federalevidence.com/sites/all/modules/filefield/icons/image-x-generic.png" /><a href="http://federalevidence.com/files/EighthCircuitSeal_14.png" type="image/png; length=36595">EighthCircuitSeal.png</a></div> </div> </div> </div> <h3> Eighth Circuit reviews claim that two jurors prematurely deliberated about the case in violation of the <a href="http://federalevidence.com/constitution#AmendmentVI">Sixth Amendment</a> right to a fair trial; the trial court took appropriate steps to assess the impact and context of the comments resulting in a determination that there was no infringement on the fair trial right, in <a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2014/08Aug/US.v.Axsom.pdf"><cite>United States v. Axsom<cite></cite></cite></a>, _ F.3d _ (8th Cir. Aug. 4, 2014) (No. 12-3703)<br /> </h3> <span class="read-more"><a href="/blog/2014/august/premature-juror-deliberations"><strong>Read more</strong></a></span> Sixth Amendment - Right To A Fair And Impartial Trial Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:30:28 +0000 Editor 2062 at http://federalevidence.com http://federalevidence.com/blog/2014/august/trial-courts-substantial-discretion-under-fre-403 <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-post-image"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="filefield-file"><img class="filefield-icon field-icon-image-jpeg" alt="image/jpeg icon" src="http://federalevidence.com/sites/all/modules/filefield/icons/image-x-generic.png" /><a href="http://federalevidence.com/files/Courtroom.NDIL2__0.jpg" type="image/jpeg; length=4571">Courtroom.NDIL2_.jpg</a></div> </div> </div> </div> <h3> Can animals be allowed in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit depending on the nature of the trial issues? In an action alleging that the disability provisions of the federal and state Fair Housing Act were violated by the exclusion of a condominium association owner's dog, the trial court allowed the dog to be present during the plaintiff's trial testimony; circuit concludes that the decisions rested within the substantial discretion afforded the trial court under <a href="http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence#Rule403">FRE 403</a>, in <a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2014/08Aug/Bhogaita.v.Altamonte.pdf"><cite>Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condominium Ass'n, Inc.</cite></a>, _ F.3d _ (11th Cir. Aug. 27, 2014) (Nos. 13–12625, 13–13914)<br /> </h3> <span class="read-more"><a href="/blog/2014/august/trial-courts-substantial-discretion-under-fre-403"><strong>Read more</strong></a></span> Rule 401 Definition of "Relevant Evidence" Rule 403 Exclusion of Relevant Evidence - Prejudice Standard of Review Mon, 25 Aug 2014 17:32:31 +0000 Editor 2058 at http://federalevidence.com http://federalevidence.com/blog/2014/august/circuit-split-whether-severance-motion-preserves-bruton-challenge <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-post-image"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="filefield-file"><img class="filefield-icon field-icon-image-gif" alt="image/gif icon" src="http://federalevidence.com/sites/all/modules/filefield/icons/image-x-generic.png" /><a href="http://federalevidence.com/files/Circuits%20Map_9.gif" type="image/gif; length=7344">Circuits Map.gif</a></div> </div> </div> </div> <h3> When a party moves to sever a case with other criminal defendants based on concerns under <a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/KeyCases/Bruton.Official.pdf"><cite>Bruton v. United States</cite></a>, does the severance motion preserve a later <i>Bruton</i> challenge on appeal when the statements of a non-testifying defendant are admitted at trial? The Sixth Circuit recently noted that the circuits are divided on this issue, in <a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2014/08Aug/US.v.Ford.pdf"><cite>United States v. Ford</cite></a>, _ F.3d _ (6th Cir. Aug. 5, 2014) (Nos. 11-2200, 11-1926, 11-1917, 11-2015)<br /> </h3> <span class="read-more"><a href="/blog/2014/august/circuit-split-whether-severance-motion-preserves-bruton-challenge"><strong>Read more</strong></a></span> Sixth Amendment - Confrontation Clause Bruton v. United States Circuit Splits Fri, 22 Aug 2014 19:36:00 +0000 Editor 2057 at http://federalevidence.com http://federalevidence.com/blog/2014/august/barring-exculpatory-party-statements <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-post-image"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="filefield-file"><img class="filefield-icon field-icon-image-jpeg" alt="image/jpeg icon" src="http://federalevidence.com/sites/all/modules/filefield/icons/image-x-generic.png" /><a href="http://federalevidence.com/files/SixthCircuit.Courthouse_6.jpg" type="image/jpeg; length=4499">SixthCircuit.Courthouse.jpg</a></div> </div> </div> </div> <h3> Sixth Circuit reviews defense effort to admit the defendant's exculpatory statements during cross-examination of a special agent and concludes the statements were properly excluded as hearsay; while inculpatory statements were properly admitted under <a href="http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence#Rule801">FRE 801(d)(2)(A)</a>, the exculpatory statements were hearsay under <a href="http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence#Rule801">FRE 801(c)</a>, and were inadmissible under the <a href="http://federalevidence.com/constitution#AmendmentVI">Confrontation Clause</a> and Rule of Completeness under <a href="http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence#Rule106">FRE 106</a>, in <a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2014/08Aug/US.v.Ford.pdf"><cite>United States v. Ford</cite></a>, _ F.3d _ (6th Cir. Aug. 5, 2014) (Nos. 11-2200, 11-1926, 11-1917, 11-2015)<br /> </h3> <span class="read-more"><a href="/blog/2014/august/barring-exculpatory-party-statements"><strong>Read more</strong></a></span> Rule 801(d)(2)(A) - Party’s Admission Sixth Amendment - Confrontation Clause Rule 106 Remainder Of Writings Witness Examination Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:57:12 +0000 Editor 2056 at http://federalevidence.com http://federalevidence.com/blog/2014/august/considering-gang-affiliation-evidence <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-post-image"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="filefield-file"><img class="filefield-icon field-icon-image-png" alt="image/png icon" src="http://federalevidence.com/sites/all/modules/filefield/icons/image-x-generic.png" /><a href="http://federalevidence.com/files/SixthCircuitSeal_1.png" type="image/png; length=112467">SixthCircuitSeal.png</a></div> </div> </div> </div> <h3> Sixth Circuit considers the circumstances in which gang affiliation evidence may be admitted; based on the charges and facts, the circuit concludes that the evidence was admissible to "demonstrate[] the relationship amongst the co-conspirators" under <a href="http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence#Rule401">FRE 401</a>, and was not unfairly prejudicial under <a href="http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence#Rule403">FRE 403</a>, in <a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2014/08Aug/US.v.Ford.pdf"><cite>United States v. Ford</cite></a>, _ F.3d _ (6th Cir. Aug. 5, 2014) (Nos. 11-2200, 11-1926, 11-1917, 11-2015)<br /> </h3> <span class="read-more"><a href="/blog/2014/august/considering-gang-affiliation-evidence"><strong>Read more</strong></a></span> Rule 401 Definition of "Relevant Evidence" Rule 403 Exclusion of Relevant Evidence - Prejudice Gang Evidence Tue, 12 Aug 2014 11:53:18 +0000 Editor 2055 at http://federalevidence.com http://federalevidence.com/blog/2014/august/circuit-consensus-drawing-adverse-inference-nonparty-witnesss-invocation-fifth-amen <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-post-image"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="filefield-file"><img class="filefield-icon field-icon-image-jpeg" alt="image/jpeg icon" src="http://federalevidence.com/sites/all/modules/filefield/icons/image-x-generic.png" /><a href="http://federalevidence.com/files/Eleventh%20Circuit%20Courthouse.Elbert-P-Tuttle-US-Courthouse.jpg" type="image/jpeg; length=39549">Eleventh Circuit Courthouse.Elbert-P-Tuttle-US-Courthouse.jpg</a></div> </div> </div> </div> <h3> While the general rule allows leading questions as long as there is a good faith basis to ask them, the Eleventh Circuit notes an open issue whether the same standard applies to a witness who is known will invoke the <a href="http://federalevidence.com/constitution#AmendmentV">Fifth Amendment</a> privilege against self-incrimination, or whether the questions much be based upon “other independently admissible evidence that corroborated them,” as required in the Ninth Circuit, in <a href="http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2014/07July/Cocquina.v.LabCorp.pdf"><cite> Coquina Investments v. TD Bank, N.A.</cite></a>, _ F.3d _ (11th Cir. July 29, 2014) (No. 12-11161)<br /> </h3> <span class="read-more"><a href="/blog/2014/august/circuit-consensus-drawing-adverse-inference-nonparty-witnesss-invocation-fifth-amen"><strong>Read more</strong></a></span> Fifth Amendment - Self Incrimination Rule 611(c) - Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation: Leading Questions Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:47:08 +0000 Editor 2048 at http://federalevidence.com