Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Evidence – relevance — undue prejudice — harmless error

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//February 9, 2012//

Evidence – relevance — undue prejudice — harmless error

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//February 9, 2012//

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Evidence – relevance — undue prejudice — harmless error

In a drug trial, testimony about the side effects of drugs was improperly admitted, but the error was harmless.

“The sole argument that he makes on appeal is that the district court erred by admitting the expert testimony of pharmacologist Dr. Robert Barkin. Dr. Barkin testified about the classification of various drugs, their side effects, and the medical supervision needed to prescribe them. Boros contends that this evidence was not relevant as defined by Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and that its admission was not harmless. We disagree. Although the testimony had only minimal relevance, the threshold for relevance under Rule 401 is quite low. The parts of the testimony related to side effects and birth defects, however, should have been excluded under Rule 403. Because the probative value was negligible, this testimony’s potential for unfair prejudice to Boros should have tipped the scales in favor of exclusion. Nonetheless, we find this error to be harmless given the weight of the government’s evidence.”

Affirmed.

10-2566 U.S. v. Boros

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Gottschall, J., Flaum, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests