As noted previously, the Fourth Amendment protects the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.  U.S. Const. Amend. IV.  Ordinarily, evidence obtained in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights cannot be used in a criminal case against that individual. See United States v. Riesselman, 646 F.3d 1072, 1078 (8th Cir. 2011).  However, there are some...

Evidence of the past sexual conduct of a victim of alleged criminal sexual conduct is admissible in very limited circumstances.  Minnesota Rule of Evidence 412 and Minnesota Statute § 609.347 are the result of many years of debate and analysis regarding the appropriate use of this type of evidence. The Rule and the statute continue to use slightly different language and clauses, and some uncertainty remains as to which should control...

Evidence of the possession or lack of liability insurance is not admissible on the issue of negligence or wrongful conduct.  Minnesota Rule of Evidence 411.  Evidence of insurance may be offered for another purpose, such as to show bias, ownership, or control. Id. (photo:...

Evidence of offers, conduct or statements made during settlement negotiations regarding a claim that is disputed as to validity or amount are not admissible to prove liability or invalidity of the claim or its amount.  Minnesota Rule of Evidence 408.  Evidence that is otherwise discoverable is not excluded under Rule 408 simply because it was revealed during settlement negotiations.  Id.  Settlement negotiations may be admissible on a point...

Action taken after an injury which might have made the injury less likely is generally not admissible to show fault or product defect.  Minnesota Rule of Evidence 407. This rule of exclusion applies in negligence, warranty, and strict liability cases.  Minnesota Rule of Evidence 407, Advisory Committee Comment – 2006 Amendments. Rule 407 does not exclude evidence of subsequent remedial measures when offered to show ownership, control,...

As alluded to in a previous post, evidence of a person’s habit (or an organization’s routine practice) is considered separately from character evidence.  Where character evidence is a generalized description of one’s disposition, habit is a regular response to a repeated, specific situation. Minnesota Rule of Evidence 406, Advisory Committee Comment. Questions used to determine whether particular behavior qualifies as a habit...