Brushing up on the subtleties of evidence rules can have a big impact on your cases
By Sung Woo Hong
Evidence law is a necessary subject for trial lawyers, but it can be quite overwhelming to digest all the evidence rules, and it requires a great deal of discipline to do so. However, after delving into some fascinating Minnesota Rules of Evidence ("MRE" or "Rule") and gaining valuable insights, I have come to appreciate the importance of fully utilizing evidence rules. In this article, I aim to explain the significance of MREs as a whole and highlight the benefits of understanding them, even the lesser-known but powerful rules. I hope to motivate my colleagues to find exploring evidence more enjoyable and to have better trial experiences.
The purpose of the rules of evidence is to uncover the truth.
Minnesota Rule of Evidence ("MRE" or "Rule") 102 states,
"These rules shall be construed to secure fairness in administration, elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay, and promotion of growth and development of the law of evidence to the end that the truth may be ascertained, and proceedings justly determined." (emphasis added).
The existence of these rules is not arbitrary; they serve a crucial purpose in discovering the truth. Ascertaining the truth is essential because it resolves factual disputes and promotes justice. I became intrigued by evidence when I encountered the concept of uncovering the truth while researching MRE 102. With this mindset, I no longer view each evidence rule as a dry legal requirement to be followed in court. Instead, I see them as a thoughtful approach to uncovering the truth. As a result, I believe that the more evidence rules a litigator knows and applies, the more truth they will be able to discover for their case. Therefore, litigators must expand their knowledge of evidence. The MREs are designed to uncover the truth, so why would you pay attention to some rules and not others?
Knowing the rules of evidence can help you decide whether to admit or exclude evidence.
Admissible evidence is what helps a case, while inadmissible evidence can hurt it. This means that a good understanding of the rules can help you find ways to admit evidence and change the outcome of a trial. Even lesser-known rules can be a game-changer, such as the Residual (Hearsay) Exception Rule 807. Under Rule 807,
"A statement not specifically covered by Rule 803 or 804 but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by the hearsay rule, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence."
To determine "equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness," Minnesota courts use a "totality of the circumstances" approach. State v. Martinez, 725 N.W.2d 733, 37 (Minn. 2007). There are four representative factors for the approach (especially in a criminal case setting): 1) whether the declarant is available for cross-examination to meet the Sixth Amendment confrontation requirement; 2) whether there is a question of whether the declarant made the statement; 3) whether the statement was against the declarant's penal-interest; and 4) whether the statement aligns with all the other evidence, "which point[s] strongly toward" the accused's guilt. State v. Ortlepp, 363 N.W.2d 39, 44 (Minn. 1985).
During my time in law school and in my continuing legal education courses focused on evidence, the Residual Exception Rule was not frequently emphasized. However, if you find yourself with a hearsay statement and are unable to identify any categorical hearsay exceptions by Rules 803 and 804, it is important to remember that Rule 807 may still be applicable. I am aware of a legal case (Ct. of Appeals State of Minn. v. Tapper, 993 N.W.2d 432.) involving domestic abuse, where the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the district court's pre-trial decision to exclude hearsay statements made by the State as excited utterances under Rule 803(2). Assuming the veracity of the Supreme Court's excited utterances analysis, admission of the hearsay statements may have been permissible under Rule 807, provided that the State or the court had addressed the rule. This, in turn, may have resulted in an opposite ruling. In that case, in a police officer's body-worn camera, the injured victim describes to the officer at the building of the incident scene on the incident date how the accused, who cohabitated with the victim along with their children for a long time, assaulted the victim.
To start with, the victim's statements (although hearsay) are crucial evidence as they directly implicate the accused. Furthermore, these statements are the most effective evidence the State has to prove the accused's guilt. In simpler terms, the recording is the strongest evidence we have to prove the accused is guilty, which serves the interests of justice. The victim's statements are likely to be trustworthy, because she spoke out against her long-term partner and her statement is relevant to the case. While the court of appeals held that the Confrontation Clause was breached, the majority of the Supreme Court remained silent on it. See Tapper at 434. However, the dissenting opinion argued that the victim's statements did not qualify as testimonials, rendering the Confrontation Clause inapplicable. Id. at 442. Considering this, I would like to emphasize that it is worth trying to win your case, and having a good understanding of evidential matters will undoubtedly be of assistance.
Understanding the rules of evidence can impact your ability to formulate a solid case theory, even when presented with seemingly inadmissible evidence.
During a trial, evidence is often presented in pieces rather than all at once. When each piece of evidence is viewed independently, it may not be enough to prove a point and could be dismissed. However, if we can connect those fragments of evidence, they may form a coherent story that can be compelling to the person making the final decision in the case. To create a story that flows seamlessly without any legal issues, the person presenting the evidence should ask the trial judge to admit it, on the condition that other evidence is also admitted later and can be connected to it. See MRE 104(b). In State v. Tran, 712 N.W.2d 540 (Minn. 2006), for example, the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that presenting a victim's life insurance policy alone is not enough to prove a motive in a premeditated murder case.
However, the same evidence may be relevant if evidence that the defendant was aware of the policy is also presented. This can be proven with evidence of the defendant and alleged co-conspirator's challenging financial conditions and romantic relationship. Under MRE 611(a), the trial judge “shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth ...” (emphasis added.) Overall, presenting evidence in a clear and compelling manner is crucial in any trial, and by connecting fragments of evidence, we can create a coherent story that can help decision-makers ascertain the truth.
Conclusion
I am truly impressed by the thoughtfulness with which the drafters of the rules of evidence developed methods to uncover the truth. A thorough understanding of Evidence Law is essential for litigators. Though it is not an easy subject to master, with persistent and consistent effort, the rewards of learning this subject are immeasurable. One will discover how seemingly overlooked rules, such as Rule 807, can prove to be pivotal, and how other rules, such as 104(b) and 611(a), can be utilized to create a solid case theory by connecting evidence fragments. In essence, the more evidence rules one knows and applies, the more truth they can uncover for their case. This fundamental purpose of the evidence rules makes studying evidence both a joy and a lifelong pursuit, and I hope you share this sentiment.
Sung Woo Hong is an attorney at Trott Law. He represents mortgage servicers, banks, credit unions, and investor groups in real estate finance legal work, including foreclosure, eviction, and litigation. Sung Woo received his JD from the University of Minnesota Law School.