 | This article needs additional citations for verification .(April 2023) |
| Evidence |
|---|
| Part of the law series |
| Types of evidence |
| Relevance |
| Authentication |
| Witnesses |
| Hearsay and exceptions |
| Other common law areas |
| | This article needs additional citations for verification .(April 2023) |
| Evidence |
|---|
| Part of the law series |
| Types of evidence |
| Relevance |
| Authentication |
| Witnesses |
| Hearsay and exceptions |
| Other common law areas |
In common law, a foundation is sufficient preliminary evidence of the authenticity and relevance for the admission of material evidence in the form of exhibits or testimony of witnesses. Although the word "Foundation" does not appear in the Federal Rules of Evidence, scholars have argued that its existence is displayed, albeit implicitly, when viewing all the rules in context. [1]
Material evidence is important evidence that may serve to determine the outcome of a case. Exhibits include real evidence, illustrative evidence, demonstrative evidence, and documentary evidence. The type of preliminary evidence necessary to lay the proper foundation depends on the form and type of material evidence offered. [2] Further, a proper foundation must be laid with respect to witness testimony. [3] The type of questioning and evidence necessary to properly lay a witness foundation differs based on what the witness is testifying to, and in what capacity they are testifying. [3] [4] [5] [6]
The lack of foundation is a valid objection that an adverse party may raise during trial.
The Federal Rules of Evidence states rules regarding a piece of evidence's relevancy and whether or not it is admissible. [7] F.R.E. 402 states relevant evidence is admissible unless otherwise excluded by: "The U.S. Constitution, a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or other rules proscribed by the Supreme Court." [8] [9] F.R.E. 402 further provides that irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. [8] [9]
F.R.E. 401 outlines the test for whether or not evidence is relevant. [10] [11] The rule states: "Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." [10] [11]
In determining these two factors, courts question what issues are consequential in a particular case, and whether the evidence a party seeks to admit has any tendency to prove or disprove a fact at issue. This is called weighing the evidence's probative value, which is a term used to describe the amount which a fact either proves or disproves an issue. [12] [13] This process of testing evidence's probative value requires a process of legal analysis and reasoning. [7]
Court's are extremely liberal when determining whether or not evidence is probative, erring on the side of admission rather than excluding evidence for being irrelevant. [14] Evidence that is irrelevant is inadmissible in court according to F.R.E. 402. [8]
Evidence is not admissible just because it is relevant. For example, in a murder case where the victim was killed by a gunshot wound, evidence showing the Defendant owned guns is relevant; however, evidence that the defendant owned guns is inadmissible to show he is a "murderous criminal" without further evidence those weapons were brought to the scene of the crime. [15] F.R.E. 403 lists some of the reasons that relevant evidence would be excluded. [16] [17] These reasons include: the likelihood of the jury becoming unduly prejudiced to a party, and a likelihood that the evidence will cause the jury to confuse the issues or be mislead, etc. [17] [16] Issues such as the evidence's prejudicial effect are balanced with how probative the evidence is. [17] [16] A court may exclude evidence if the issues it presents, such as prejudice, substantially outweigh the value of the evidence. [17] [16]
Another example of this balancing test is in Old Chief v United States. [18] In Old Chief, the defendant was on trial for an altercation that resulted in him firing a weapon. [18] The defendant had previously been convicted of a crime resulting in imprisonment for one year, which put him in violation of a statute prohibiting certain convicted felons from possessing guns. [18] The defendant wished to stipulate he was a convicted felon and prevent the government from referencing the specifics of his prior conviction. [18] The Court ruled that the specifics of his prior conviction were inadmissible, in part, due to F.R.E. 403, given the prejudice to the defendant would outweigh its probative value since the defendant already admitted he had previously been convicted of a crime. [18]
As a preliminary matter, a lawyer must introduce sufficient facts to the court to suggest that the introduction of evidence will meet the standard set forth in F.R.E. 401. [11] [10] [19] [20] This may be done outside of the presence of the jury at a preliminary hearing. [20] [19] There, under relaxed evidentiary rules, [20] [19] attorneys present arguments to the court for or against the admissibility of evidence. [21]
The Federal Rules of Evidence mandate that evidence be authentic in order to be introduced at trial. [22] [23] This means the proponent of evidence must "produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is." [22] [23]
For example, if the prosecution in a murder case wishes to present a photograph of the crime scene to the jury, they must verify that the photograph is an accurate representation of the what it is being offered to show (the murder scene). [24] This may include facts with regards to: distances in the photograph, inaccuracies or distortions, the camera the photograph was taken with, the circumstances under which the photo was taken, etc. [24]
There is a process attorneys must follow before being allowed to show evidence to the jury. [25] First, the proponent of the evidence must request that the item be marked for identification. [25] The proponent will then hand the item of evidence to the bailiff/court reporter who will mark it (ie.: Exhibit 1). [25] After the item of evidence has been marked for purposes of identification, the attorney must then hand it to opposing counsel for inspection. [25] Following opposing counsel's inspection, the proponent can then bring the item of evidence to the witness. [25]
Once the item of evidence is with the witness, the proponent must lay sufficient foundation to establish the evidence's authenticity. [25] The attorney must now elicit answers from the witness that establish the evidence is what is purports to be. [25] Once a sufficient foundation has been laid, the proponent may ask the judge to move the item into evidence. [25] The judge will then ask if there are any objections from opposing counsel, and make a determination as to whether or not the evidence will be admitted. [25] If the judge rules to admit the evidence, it can then be shown to the jury. [25]
Attorneys must lay a foundation for witness testimony at trial. [26] The process differs when the witness is a lay witness or an expert witness. [26] However, as a baseline matter for both expert and lay witnesses, the testimony must be established to be helpful in assisting the trier of fact understand a fact at issue in the case. [27] [28]
A lay witness is a non-expert who may only provide opinions based upon their own personal knowledge of particular facts at issue in a case. [29] F.R.E. 602 provides the rule relating to the necessary foundation that must be laid for a witness to testify on a particular matter. [30] [3] The rule states that a sufficient amount of evidence must be proposed to show that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. [30] [3]
Lawyers typically elicit the necessary information to establish a foundation for lay witnesses via targeted questions during testimony. [31] For example, to establish a basis of a lay witness's personal opinion of a defendant, an attorney may ask the witness questions such as: whether they know the defendant? How do you know the defendant? How long have you known the defendant? [31] These questions serve to establish the fact that the witness has developed their own perception of the defendant through their own experience.
An expert witness is a witness with a particular skillset and set of credentials that allows them to formulate a specialized opinion on an issue in a case. [29] Expert witnesses may formulate and testify to opinions which lay witnesses would be disallowed to make. [29] Further, unlike lay witnesses, expert witnesses do not need to have personally observed the facts at issue to make an opinion. [32] [6] However, F.R.E 703 mandates that the experts base their scientific findings on facts or data that another experts in the same field would reasonably rely upon to come to a determination.
Prior to the promulgation on F.R.E. 702, the standard for admissibility of expert opinion was guided by Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [33] That standard, while superseded by 702, is still a valid challenge to expert testimony. [34] The Daubert standard inquires: 1) whether the expert's scientific method has been subject to testing, 2) whether the method has undergone peer review and been published, 3) how fallible is the method, 4) whether the method is subject to particular standards when it is undertaken, 5) whether the method is accepted in the scientific community in which it is employed? [33] If a combination of these factors are established following an objection by opposing counsel, the expert's opinion will be deemed admissible. [35]
An expert witness, particularly in common law countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, is a person whose opinion by virtue of education, training, certification, skills or experience, is accepted by the judge as an expert. The judge may consider the witness's specialized opinion about evidence or about facts before the court within the expert's area of expertise, to be referred to as an "expert opinion". Expert witnesses may also deliver "expert evidence" within the area of their expertise. Their testimony may be rebutted by testimony from other experts or by other evidence or facts.
Testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter.
Hearsay is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement that is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
In United States federal law, the Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony. A party may raise a Daubert motion, a special motion in limine raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy are the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard:
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), is a United States Supreme Court case determining the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal courts. In Daubert, the Court held that the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence implicitly overturned the Frye standard; the standard that the Court articulated is referred to as the Daubert standard.
First adopted in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence codify the evidence law that applies in United States federal courts. In addition, many states in the United States have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules.
Character evidence is a term used in the law of evidence to describe any testimony or document submitted for the purpose of proving that a person acted in a particular way on a particular occasion based on the character or disposition of that person. In the United States, Federal Rule of Evidence 404 maps out its permissible and prohibited uses in trials. Three factors typically determine the admissibility of character evidence:
The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction.
Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a judge or jury—to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and "not excluded by the rules of evidence", which generally means that it must not be unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability. The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible, though some countries proscribe the prosecution from exploiting evidence obtained in violation of constitutional law, thereby rendering relevant evidence inadmissible. This rule of evidence is called the exclusionary rule. In the United States, this was effectuated federally in 1914 under the Supreme Court case Weeks v. United States and incorporated against the states in 1961 in the case Mapp v. Ohio. Both of these cases involved law enforcement conducting warrantless searches of the petitioners' homes, with incriminating evidence being described inside them.
Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence contain the rules governing impeachment in US federal courts.
Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 1 W.L.R. 965 (1956), is a leading Privy Council case that defined the scope of the hearsay rule. It was a case heard on appeal from the Supreme Court of the Federation of Malaya.
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court case that applied the Daubert standard to expert testimony from non-scientists.
R v Béland [1987] 2 S.C.R. 398 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court rejected the use of polygraph results as evidence in court.
Hearsay, in a legal forum, is an out-of-court statement which is being offered in court for the truth of what was asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies.
R v Mohan, 1994 CanLII 80, [1994] 2 SCR 9 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the use of expert witnesses in trial testimony.
The hearsay provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 reformed the common law relating to the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings begun on or after 4 April 2005.
In United States law, the Frye standard, Frye test, or general acceptance test is a judicial test used in some U.S. state courts to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. It provides that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is admissible only when the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence superseded Frye as the standard for admissibility of expert evidence in federal courts. Some states, however, still adhere to the Frye standard.
Relevance, in the common law of evidence, is the tendency of a given item of evidence to prove or disprove one of the legal elements of the case, or to have probative value to make one of the elements of the case likelier or not. Probative is a term used in law to signify "tending to prove". Probative evidence "seeks the truth". Generally in law, evidence that is not probative is inadmissible and the rules of evidence permit it to be excluded from a proceeding or stricken from the record "if objected to by opposing counsel". A balancing test may come into the picture if the value of the evidence needs to be weighed versus its prejudicial nature.
An ultimate issue in criminal law is a legal issue at stake in the prosecution of a crime for which an expert witness is providing testimony.
The role of expert witnesses in English law is to give explanations of difficult or technical topics in civil and criminal trials, to assist the fact finding process. The extent to which authorities have been allowed to testify, and on what topics, has been debated, and to this end a variety of criteria have evolved throughout English case law.