§ 8.01 Introduction

• Jurisdiction: United States

§ 8.01 Introduction

This chapter discusses "multiple admissibility" and "limited admissibility." In many instances, an item of evidence could be used for multiple purposes. In some cases, this multiple use is proper. For example, a party's inconsistent statement may be admitted (1) for impeachment as a prior inconsistent statement if the party testifies¹ and (2) as substantive evidence as a party admission.² Hence, the phrase "multiple admissibility."

Frequently, however, evidence may be admissible for one purpose but inadmissible for another. Evidence also may be admissible against one party but not against another party. Both these situations involve "limited admissibility." In such cases, Federal Rule 105 applies, and the court must, upon request, instruct the jury as to the limited purpose of the evidence.³ The trial court may also give a limiting instruction sua sponte.

Whether a limiting instruction is effective—i.e., whether the jury will be either willing or able to abide by the instruction is often questionable. It is somewhat like trying to unring a bell.⁴

--------

Notes:

^[1] Fed. R. Evid. 613.

^[2] Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A).

^[3] See 1 Wigmore, Evidence § 13, at 300 (3d ed. 1940) ("When an evidentiary fact is offered for one purpose, and becomes admissible by satisfying all the rules applicable to it in that capacity, it is not inadmissible because it does not satisfy the rules applicable to it in some other capacity, and because the jury might improperly consider it in the latter capacity. This doctrine, although involving certain risks, is indispensible as a practical rule.").

^[4] See United States v. Nace, 561 F.2d 763, 768 (9th Cir. 1977) ("The government can argue that the cautionary instructions, running as they did in favor of both defendants, gave...