Clarifying the curative admissibility doctrine: Using the principles of forfeiture and deterrence to shape the relief for an opponent's evidentiary misconduct

Fordham Law Review

Volumn 76, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 1295-1314

  Imwinkelried, Edward J ^a,b  

^a Department of Law ^*

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 39349084439     PISSN: 0015704X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (153)

1. Francis A. Gilligan & Edward J. Imwinkelried, Bringing the "Opening the Door" Theory to a Close: The Tendency to Overlook the Specific Contradiction Doctrine in Evidence Law, 41 Santa Clara L. Rev. 807, 816-35 (2001).
2. See Henderson v. George Washington Univ., 449 F.3d 127, 140 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
3. See Gilligan & Imwinkelried, supra note 1, at 816-35.
4. Henderson, 449 F.3d at 140;
5. United States v. Beason, 220 F.3d 964, 967 (8th Cir. 2000);
6. Jackson v. State, 728 N.E.2d 147, 152 (Ind. 2000);
7. Gilligan & Imwinkelried, supra note 1, at 821-23 (collecting cases).
8. Gilligan & Imwinkelried, supra note 1, at 816-23.
9. See generally id.
10. See Peter Westen, Away from Waiver: A Rationale for the Forfeiture of Constitutional Rights in Criminal Procedure, 75 Mich. L. Rev. 1214 (1977).
11. United States v. Haddad, 462 F.3d 783, 793 (7th Cir. 2006).
12. Westen, supra note 7, at 1215.
13. Id. at 1214.
14. Id. at 1214, 1254.
15. Id. at 1215.
16. Id. at 1218.
17. Id. at 1237, 1256.
18. Id. at 1216, 1259 (discussing Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973);
19. Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U.S. 790 (1970);
20. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970);
21. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970)).
22. Id. at 1237.
23. Id.
24. Id. at 1258-59.
25. Id. at 1236-37, 1259-60.
26. Id. at 1237.
27. Id. at 1235, 1248, 1252 (noting that reprosecution will be difficult).
28. Id. at 1258.
29. Id. at 1236.
30. Id. at 1236, 1238.
31. Id. at 1235.
32. Id. at 1247.
33. Id. at 1248.
34. Id. at 1249.
35. Id. at 1220, 1227.
36. Id. at 1219, 1247 (discussing Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974)).
37. Id. at 1249;
38. see Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1).
39. Westen, supra note 7, at 1235.
40. Id.
41. Id. at 1260.
42. Id. at 1217.
43. 1 McCormick on Evidence § 57, at 288-92 (6th ed. 2006).
44. Id. § 57, at 290-91, 291 n.8
45. (citing Former v. Bruhn, 31 Cal. Rptr. 503 (Dist. Ct. App. 1963));
46. see also Gilligan & Imwinkelried, supra note 1, at 828-29.
47. McCormick on Evidence, supra note 36, § 57, at 291 & n.11
48. (citing People v. Matlock, 89 Cal. Rptr. 862 (Ct. App. 1970));
49. see also Gilligan & Imwinkelried, supra note 1, at 828.
50. McCormick on Evidence, supra note 36, § 57, at 288-89.
51. Id.
52. Id. § 57, at 290.
53. Id. § 57, at 290-91.
54. Id. § 57, at 291.
55. The strongest fact situation for invoking the curative admissibility doctrine is a case in which (1) the first party violates one evidentiary rule that would otherwise bar testimony prejudicial to the innocent party, and (2) the innocent party proffers rebuttal evidence that would otherwise be barred only by the same evidentiary rule. For example, the first party violates the character evidence rules to introduce inadmissible evidence of his or her good character, and the second party attempts to respond by introducing otherwise inadmissible evidence of the first party's bad character. See, e.g., People v. Matlock, 89 Cal. Rptr. 862 (Ct. App. 1970). Neither the courts nor the commentators have specifically addressed the question of whether the first party's violation should entitle the innocent party to introduce relevant rebuttal evidence even when the rebuttal evidence runs afoul of a different exclusionary rule of evidence. It seems arguable, though, that, if the first party has introduced inadmissible evidence prejudicing the innocent party, the latter party ought to be allowed to present any evidence necessary to counteract the prejudice even when the rebuttal evidence is barred by another exclusionary rule.
56. McCormick on Evidence, supra note 36, § 57, at 288-92.
57. See generally Gilligan & Imwinkelried, supra note 1.
58. Before an attack by the defendant, such testimony would be inadmissible on both the historical merits of the case and for the purpose of bolstering the plaintiffs credibility. Fed. R. Evid. 404, 405, 608.
59. Fed. R. Evid. 608(b).
60. Id.
61. See generally Gerald L. Shargel, Federal Evidence Rule 608(b): Gateway to the Minefield of Witness Preparation, 76 Fordham L. Rev. 1263 (2007) (discussing the ethical dilemma attorneys face under Rule 608(b) when preparing clients for trial).
62. Gilligan & Imwinkelried, supra note 1, at 833-34.
63. Id. at 833 n.162
64. (citing Ryan v. Bd. of Police Comm'rs, 96 F.3d 1076, 1082 n.1 (8th Cir. 1996) (using the language "a court may permit");
65. United States v. Rea, 958 F.2d 1206, 1225 (2d Cir. 1992) ("The concept... gives the trial court discretion.");
66. United States v. Nardi, 633 F.2d 972 (1st Cir. 1980);
67. Grist v. Upjohn Co., 168 N.W.2d 389 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969);
68. Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Coleman, 87 S.W.2d 537 (Tex. Civ. App. 1935)).
69. It is true that in one situation the McCormick treatise states that, under the curative admissibility doctrine, the innocent party has a right to respond. See supra note 37 and accompanying text. However, it is easy to reach the same result without positing the existence of a right. Simply stated, it would be an abuse of discretion to exclude the rebuttal evidence in such a fact situation.
70. See Gilligan & Imwinkelried, supra note 1, at 816-23.
71. See McCormick on Evidence, supra note 36, § 49, at 232-38.
72. Of course, the judge has a residual discretion to bar the specific contradiction evidence under Rule 403. Rule 403 reads, "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 403. With the exception of convictions automatically admissible for impeachment under Federal Rule 609(a)(2), all proffered evidence is potentially subject to discretionary exclusion under Rule 403. Paul F. Rothstein, Some Themes in the Proposed Federal Rules of Evidence, 33 Fed. B.J. 21, 29 (1974).
73. Gilligan & Imwinkelried, supra note 1, at 829, 831-32.
74. Id.
75. Id. at 829 n.144
76. (citing Lala v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 420 N.W.2d 804, 807-08 (Iowa 1988);
77. State v. Tyler, 676 S.W.2d 922, 925 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984) (using the language "about the same document")).
78. Id. at 829 n.145
79. (citing United States v. Forrester, 60 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 1995);
80. United States v. Rea, 958 F.2d 1206, 1225 (2d Cir. 1992)).
81. Id. at 831;
82. see also supra note 54.
83. Gilligan & Imwinkelried, supra note 1, at 833-34.
84. Id. at 835.
85. Id.
86. Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 61 cmt. a (2000) (referring to "the agency power of lawyers"); see also Standards for Criminal Justice: Prosecution Function and Defense Function Standard 4-5.2(b) (3d ed. 1993) (noting that the defense counsel makes the final decision to determine "what witnesses to call, whether and how to conduct cross-examination,... and what evidence should be introduced").
87. 8 John Henry Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 2325 (John T. McNaughton ed., rev. ed. 1961).
88. Francis A. Gilligan & Edward J. Imwinkelried, Waiver Raised to the Second Power: Waivers of Evidentiary Privileges by Lawyers Representing Accused Being Tried in Absentia, 56 S.C. L. Rev. 509, 530 (2005).
89. See Gilligan & Imwinkelried, supra note 1, at 835.
90. Ronald L. Carlson et al., Evidence: Teaching Materials for an Age of Science and Statutes 20 (6th ed. 2007).
91. Id. at 21.
92. Id. at 22.
93. See generally Guido Calabresi, A Common Law for the Age of Statutes (2000).
94. Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously 22 (1977);
95. see also Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. v. U.S. Agency for Int'l Dev., 430 F. Supp. 2d 222, 241 n.20 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
96. Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Rules of Evidence: With Advisory Committee Notes and Legislative History 325 (2005).
97. Id. at 285, 325.
98. See, e.g., United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196 (1995);
99. United States v. Krilich, 159 F.3d 1020, 1024-25 (7th Cir. 1998)
100. cert, denied, 528 U.S. 810 (1999);
101. United States v. Burch, 156 F.3d 1315 (D.C. Cir. 1998)
102. cert, denied, 526 U.S. 1011 (1999);
103. United States v. Young, 73 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (N.D. Iowa 1999)
104. rev'd on other grounds, 223 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2000)
105. cert, denied, 531 U.S. 1168 (2001).
106. Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6).
107. Id.
108. 2A Norman J. Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction §§ 47:23-25 (6th ed. 2000).
109. Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6) advisory committee's note (amended 1997).
110. Fed. R. Evid. 615.
111. Id.
112. 397 U.S. 337, 343 (1970).
113. 5 Wayne R. LaFave, Jerold H. Israel & Nancy J. King, Criminal Procedure § 24.2(c), at 462 n.38 (2d ed. 1999).
114. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
115. See Edward J. Imwinkelried, Federal Rule of Evidence 402: The Second Revolution, 6 Rev. Litig. 129, 130 (1987).
116. Fed. R. Evid. 402 advisory committee's note.
117. 22 Charles Alan Wright & Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 5191, at 175 n.14 (1978).
118. Id. § 5191, at 175.
119. Id. § 5191, at 178 n.9.
120. Fed. R. Evid. 402 advisory committee's note.
121. Cal. Evid. Code § 351 (West 1995).
122. 7 Cal. Law Revision Comm'n, Recommendation Proposing an Evidence Code 343 (1965).
123. Fed. R. Evid. 402 advisory committee's note.
124. See 22 Wright & Graham, supra note 86, § 5199, at 222.
125. Id. § 5199, at 222 n.17.
126. Carlson et al., supra note 67, at 20.
127. 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
128. I Paul C. Giannelli & Edward J. Imwinkelried, Scientific Evidence § 1.05 (4th ed. 2007).
129. 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
130. Edward W. Cleary, Preliminary Notes on Reading the Rules of Evidence, 57 Neb. L. Rev. 908 (1978).
131. Id. at 915.
132. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 587-88 (1993).
133. 166 F.3d 1119 (11th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted).
134. Id. at 1125.
135. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
136. Id.
137. William H. Fortune, Richard H. Underwood & Edward J. Imwinkelried, Modern Litigation and Professional Responsibility Handbook: The Limits of Zealous Advocacy § 13.8 (1996).
138. See Singer, supra note 77, § 47:02.
139. Fed. R. Evid. 102.
140. Id.
141. 21 Wright & Graham, supra note 86, § 5026, at 516-23.
142. Fed. R. Evid. 102 advisory committee's note ("For similar provisions see Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, California Evidence Code § 2, and New Jersey Evidence Rule 5.").
143. Wash. R. Evid. 102;
144. see 21 Wright & Graham, supra note 86, § 5026, at 522.
145. Wash. R. Evid. 102 judicial council cmt.
146. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
147. Fed. R. Evid. 403 advisory committee's note.
148. Carlson et al., supra note 67, at 351-52.
149. Fed. R. Evid. 102.
150. See generally Gilligan & Imwinkelried, supra note 1.
151. Id. at 832-33.
152. Fed. R. Evid. 102.
153. 21 Wright & Graham, supra note 86, § 5026, at 516-17.