In possession with intent to distribute cocaine prosecution, admitting packages of cocaine allegedly seized by authorities even though their chain of custody has been broken so that nothing directly linked the substance seized to the cocaine tested by the lab; because gaps in the chain of custody were not so deficient as to preclude rationally finding that the evidence is what the government claims, the evidence was admitted and the weaknesses in the chain of custody go to its weight, in United States v. Rawlins, 606 F.3d 73 (3d Cir. May 26, 2010) (No. 08-2948)

In trial for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base (crack), because the Fourth Circuit requires as a foundation for the admission of other act evidence under FRE 404(b) (in this case, evidence of the defendant's prior drug convictions), the proponent of the evidence must show that the other act evidence is “necessary,” which actually involves a showing that it was “probative of an essential claim or an element of the offense,” in United States v. Rooks, 596 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. Feb. 25, 2010) (No. 08-4725)

In a drug conspiracy prosecution, the defendants’ Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights were not implicated by the failure of the court to order discovery of information about an opposing witness that might be useful to the defense; however the failure could, to the extent it withheld potentially impeaching evidence about a prosecution witness, implicate the defendants’ rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to present a defense, in United States v. Wilson, __ F.3d __ (D.C. Cir. May 25, 2010) (Nos. 06-3128, 06-3131, 06-3133, 06-3136, 06-3140) (per curiam)

The Federal Evidence Blog returns
Tuesday, June 1st,
after Memorial Day, the federal holiday commemorating
the sacrifices of
those in the military service of our country.

Memorial Day is celebrated on the last Monday in May. See 5 U.S.C. § 6103 (federal holidays).

In trial for possessing with intent to distribute cocaine base (crack), admitting detective’s drug distribution technique expert testimony on the mental state of a possessor of the amount of drugs found in defendant’s possession because the witness did not directly testify about the defendant’s intent to distribute, leaving it to the jury to infer from all the facts of the case; but even if this testimony was an error as testimony about the defendant’s criminal intent under FRE 704(b), it was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, in United States v. Parish, 606 F.3d 480 (8th Cir. May 24, 2010) (No. 08-3421)

In obstetric malpractice case, vacating and remanding trial court's grant of judgment as a matter of law to the defendant because the trial court erroneously excluded testimony by the plaintiff's expert on the applicable professional standard of obstetric care and its relation to causing the plaintiff's injuries; because the expert had appropriate credentials and foundation for proffering an opinion, it was an error not to let the expert present testimony that was relevant to the action in that it would make the existence of any fact of consequence to determination of the action more probable or less probable that it would be without the evidence, in Pages-Ramirez v. Ramirez-Gonzalez, __ F.3d __(1st Cir. May 19, 2010) (No. 08-1831)

In plaintiff's personal injury suit against asbestos-related defendants, redacting notations on plaintiff's death certificate, autopsy report and hospital records concerning mesothelioma as his cause of death; although the records are admissible under FRE 803(8) (Public records and reports) and FRE 803(9) (Records of vital statistics), under FRE 403 the trial judge may exclude from the record any information whose probative value was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, in Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., Inc., 80 F.3d 777 (3d Cir. March 21, 1996) (No. 94-2148)

In drug trafficking and firearm violation trial, admission of the defendant’s financial affidavit for the appointment of counsel was error but it was not plain error; circuit notes constitutional conflict between Sixth Amendmen Right to Counsel and Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination, in United States v. Aguirre, 605 F.3d 351 (6th Cir. May 17, 2010) (No. 08-5477)

Sixth Circuit majority notes that videotape evidence may be considered on summary judgment in a civil rights excessive force action case; expert opinion based on the videotape evidence could also be considered; dissent concludes summary judgment was not warranted based on the same videotape evidence, in Griffin v. Hardrick, _ F.3d _ (6th Cir. May 13, 2010) (No. 09-5757)

In review of denial of order to compel clergy member to testify before federal grand jury, vacating and remanding so that the trial judge may "develop a sufficient record or make sufficient findings" for application of a privilege that protects "communications made (1) to a clergyperson (2) in his or her spiritual and professional capacity (3) with a reasonable expectation of confidentiality," in Re Grand Jury Investigation, 918 F.2d 374 (3d Cir. 1990) (No. 89-3817)