Also known as: relevancy conditioned on facts · conditional relevancy · conditional relevance
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A procedural rule that permits a court to admit evidence whose relevance depends on the existence of another fact. The court admits the evidence if the proponent supplies or promises evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that the connecting fact is true. The jury then decides whether the connecting fact exists and what weight to give the evidence.
Raymond Ramos faces embezzlement charges for diverting restricted charitable funds. The prosecution offers evidence of similar payments Ramos arranged two years earlier at another nonprofit. The court admits the evidence after finding sufficient proof from which the jury could reasonably conclude Ramos committed the prior acts. The jury will decide whether those acts occurred and whether they show motive or absence of mistake.
Regina Robinson is tried for conspiracy to distribute drugs. The government offers a co-conspirator's out-of-court statement implicating her. The court admits the statement after determining there is enough evidence for the jury to find Robinson joined the conspiracy. The jury will decide whether the conspiracy existed and whether the statement is admissible against her.
In May 1984, Clarence Greathouse, working as an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, arranged to sell a kilogram of cocaine to Angelo Lonardo. Lonardo agreed that he would find individuals to distribute the drug. When the sale became imminent, Lonardo stated in a tape-recorded telephone conversation that he had a "gentleman friend" who had some questions to ask about the cocaine. In a subsequent telephone call, Greathouse spoke to the "friend" about the quality of the drug and the price. Greathouse then spoke again with Lonardo, and the two arranged the details of the purchase. They agreed that the sale would take place in a designated hotel parking lot, and Lonardo would transfer the drug from Greathouse's car to the "friend," who would be waiting in the parking lot in his own car. Greathouse proceeded with the transaction as planned. FBI agents arrested Lonardo and petitioner immediately after Lonardo placed a kilogram of cocaine into petitioner's car in the hotel parking lot. In petitioner's car, the agents found over $20,000 in cash. Petitioner was charged with conspiring to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Petitioner was also charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The Government introduced, over petitioner's objection, Angelo Lonardo's telephone statements regarding the participation of the "friend" in the transaction. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio found that, considering the events in the parking lot and Lonardo's statements over the telephone, the Government had established by a preponderance of the evidence that a conspiracy involving Lonardo and petitioner existed. The court also found that Lonardo's statements over the telephone had been made in the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Accordingly, the trial court held that Lonardo's out-of-court statements satisfied Rule 801(d)(2)(E) and were not hearsay. Petitioner was convicted on both counts and sentenced to 15 years. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the admission of the recorded statements and related evidentiary and constitutional questions.
View caseThe judge asks only whether the proponent has introduced or promised evidence sufficient for a reasonable juror to find the connecting fact. The judge does not decide the fact conclusively or require proof by a preponderance.
The court may strike the evidence or instruct the jury to disregard it. Conditional admission therefore protects the record while allowing orderly presentation of proof.
Under Rule 104(a) the judge decides the preliminary fact by a preponderance. Under conditional relevance the judge screens only for sufficient evidence to support a jury finding and leaves the ultimate decision to the jury.
Yes. Once the judge finds sufficient evidence to support a finding, the evidence reaches the jury. The jury then determines whether the connecting fact exists and what weight to assign the evidence.
…We intimate no view on the proper standard of proof for questions falling under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b) (conditional relevancy). We also decline to address the circumstances in which the burden of coming forward to show that the proffered evidence is inadmissible is appropriately placed on the nonoffering party.…