Friedland Evidence Problems, Part 1: Relevance

3-1. Relevant to issue of who is biological mother. The biological mother will have a tendency to be more emotionally attached to the child.

3-2. Relevant to show motive and the background relationships among the parties. Both issues are always material.

3-3. All are relevant -- that is, they have at least some minimal tendency to prove identity of thief. Items two & three are of extremely low probative value.

3-4. All items of evidence are of some minimal probative value. Items 8-10 are background of the defendant, always relevant but of very low probative value.

3-5. Relevant.

3-6. Irrelevant because not material. Only disputed issue is agency.

3-7. Relevant to motive for arson.

3-8. (1) Relevant. All events around the time of the crime may be described, including where people were just before.
(2) Relevant to show that property taken "by force or fear," which is an element of the crime of robbery.
(3) The judge may rule any way he or she sees fit. Rulings on relevance are totally within judge's discretion.

3-9. Obviously relevant, although not very probative.

3-10. Relevant to show reasonableness of Franz's perception that he was being attacked, which is an element of self-defense.

3-11. Irrelevant. No probative value as far as I can tell.

3-12. All all are relevant. They are descriptions of the crime scene, background, motive, or provide context.

3-13. Relevant, but low probative value because of passage of time.

3-14. Relevant incriminating behavior.

3-15. Friedland thinks it is relevant because it is remotely possible that the refusal to jump was due to a guilty conscience. I think there is zero possibility of that, so the evidence is irrelevant.

3-16. Relevant both to violence and the general background of the defendant.

3-17. Irrelevant unless it can be shown that the metal is connected to the hedge cutter.

3-18. Irrelevant unless connected to either the robbery itself (e.g., if it could be shown they were the gloves worn by the perpetrator to avoid leaving fingerprints); or to the defendant (since the burglar wore gloves, the defendant is more likely to be the burglar if he ows glives and left them near the scene).

3-19. Sure it's relevant. Both items make his story about thinking he was smuggling diamonds more plausible.

3-20. (1) Relevant.
(2) Irrelevant without proof that these are beer can he emptied personally rather than antique beer cans
(3) Relevant background
(4) Relevant
(5) Borderline, but probably has a tiny bit of relevance -- speeding, reckless driving and DUI are all related traffic offenses.
(6) Relevant background
(7) Relevant
(8) Very low relevance -- background
(9) Irrelevant
(10) Irrelevant

3-21. (1) Relevant (access, control)
(2) Relevant
(3) Relevant
(4) Relevant (access, presence at scene)
(5) Relevant, but very low probative value
(6) Relevant background
(7) Relevant
(8) Relevant if connected to evidence of whether Ivy has ever been to kansas

3-22. Items 1-3 are irrelevant because not material (issue of negligence not disputed). Item 4 relevant as incriminating behavior.

3-23. (1) Connect the knife to the crime
(2) Connect the tire prints to a car connected to the crime or the accused
(3) Relevant without any connecting evidence
(4) Connect them to the crime
(5) The contents of the messages have some connection to the crime or establish the time of the crime.