MANUAL ON RECURRING PROBLEMS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS - 2001
Go to Federal Manuals Table of Contents - Go to Recurring Problems Table of Contents

Part V. Evidence - Part V(A) 7. Admissibility: Receipt Of Expert Testimony: Evidence Improperly Admitted Or Admitted For Limited Purpose

        Part V(A) 7    Receipt Of Expert Testimony: General Principles
        Part V(A) 7a  Receipt Of Expert Testimony: Prior Consistent And Inconsistent Statements
        Part V(A) 7b  Receipt Of Expert Testimony: Evidence Admissible For One Purpose But Not For Another
        Part V(A) 7c  Receipt Of Expert Testimony: When Evidence Has Been Withdrawn From Jury's Consideration

MANUAL ON RECURRING PROBLEMS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS - 2001

Part V(A) 7     Admissibility: Receipt Of Expert Testimony: General Principles

CAVEAT: See Publication Preface and Caveats.

FORECITE National™ Materials Related To This Issue:

Chapter 26 Limited Purpose Evidence

A error caused by the improper introduction of evidence or the admission of evidence that is properly admitted for only a limited purpose may oftentimes be avoided by a prompt and forceful admonition to the jury.

When considering whether a new trial should be granted, an appellate court will consider the forcefulness and timeliness of the trial court's curative instruction.

United States v. Nace, 561 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1977)
United States v. Johnson, 618 F.2d 60 (9th Cir. 1980)

Curative instructions may not be adequate where the prejudicial evidence bears on a factual issue vital to the case.

United States v. St. Clair, 855 F.2d 518 (8th Cir. 1988) (polygraph test)
United States v. Miller, 874 F.2d 1255 (9th Cir. 1989)

MANUAL ON RECURRING PROBLEMS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS - 2001

CAVEAT: See Publication Preface and Caveats.

26.3 Prior Inconsistent Statements

26.4 Prior Consistent Statements

FRE 801(d)(1)(B) permits the introduction of a declarant's consistent out-of-court statements to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive only when those statements were made before the charged recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.

Tome v. United States, 115 S. Ct. 696 (1995)

When a witness's prior inconsistent statement is admitted in evidence, the court must, on request by counsel, instruct the jury that the statement was admitted only for the purpose of impeaching the witness's testimony in court and is not to be considered as evidence of the truth of the matter referred to in the statement.

United States v. Partin, 493 F.2d 750 (5th Cir. 1974)
United States v. Jones, 592 F.2d 1038 (9th Cir. 1979)

Statements made by a criminal defendant during failed plea bargain negotiations may be used as trial evidence to impeach the defendant's inconsistent testimony, if the defendant has knowingly and voluntarily agreed to waive the provisions of FRE 410 and FRCRP 11 (e)(6) that prohibit admission of such statements against the defendant.

United States v. Mezzanatto, 115 S. Ct. 797 (1995)

MANUAL ON RECURRING PROBLEMS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS - 2001

CAVEAT: See Publication Preface and Caveats.

Chapter 26 Limited Purpose Evidence

If evidence is admissible for one purpose but is inadmissible for another, the trial judge must upon request instruct the jury as to the limited purpose for which the evidence may be considered.

United States v. Washington, 592 F.2d 680 (2d Cir. 1979)
United States v. Rivera, 837 F.2d 906 (10th Cir. 1988), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 900 F.2d 1462 (10th Cir. 1990)

MANUAL ON RECURRING PROBLEMS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS - 2001

CAVEAT: See Publication Preface and Caveats.

FORECITE National™ Materials Related To This Issue:

24.3.3.1 Evidence Admitted But Later Withdrawn Must Not Be Considered

When the court withdraws evidence from the jury's consideration, it should instruct the jury to disregard the evidence.

United States v. Smith, 517 F.2d 710 (5th Cir. 1975)
United States v. Moya-Gomez, 860 F.2d 706 (7th Cir. 1988)