- 20 -
The videotape, by its nature, would not even connect any
individual outlay reflected in petitioners’ ledgers, credit card
statements, etc., to any specific business function during the
years in issue, since the tape purports to cover only a general
modus operandi from 1993 through 1999. Nor would it afford the
Court a rational foundation, for example, to estimate the
percentage of business versus personal use for a given type of
expense, since the tape purports to show only business events.
The Court cannot conclude that the video conforms to the
definition of relevant evidence in rule 401 of the Federal Rules
of Evidence.
Furthermore, even assuming that the videotape could clear
the relevancy hurdle, the evidence would properly be excluded
under rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which 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.” As indicated in the
preceding discussion, the tape would be needlessly cumulative on
this record.
Respondent did not object to admission of the photographs
offered by petitioners as generally showing petitioners’
promotional activities, including conventions, training, and
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011