For example, in a personal injury case, the insurance company may attempt to dig up unfavorable information about claimants in order to make the claimant appear in a negative light. This is especially true if the claimant has a criminal background. It is important that your lawyer be familiar with the rules of evidence and know how to use those rules and protect your interest by excluding irrelevant information from getting into evidence.
Most jurisdictions have a time limit on when a criminal conviction can be admitted into evidence. Criminal convictions may also be excluded if they are not felonies. In many states, an arrest generally can not be admitted into evidence in a personal injury case and even convictions can be excluded if they are more than 10 years old. Experienced personal injury trial lawyers understand the rules of evidence and have a good idea of what they can get into evidence in court and what they can exclude.
Cases can be won or lost based on what is admitted or excluded from evidence at trial. Nor will it be necessary for a trial judge to determine whether evidence is reliable, because the only question is whether it has the capability, rationally, to affect findings of fact.
There may of course be a limiting case in which the evidence is so inherently incredible, fanciful or preposterous that it could not be accepted by a rational jury. In such a case its effect on the probability of the existence of a fact in issue would be nil and it would not meet the criterion of relevance. The prosecution wants to offer evidence that Ruby's mom had refused to buy her a Halloween costume. The evidence is relevant to prove that Ruby had a motive for stealing the makeup.
Example: Same case. The prosecution also wants to call the drugstore manager to testify that the makeup department suffers more thefts than any other department of the drugstore. This testimony would be irrelevant because it does not relate specifically to Ruby. Example: Lance Sellot is charged with drunk driving.
The prosecution wants to offer evidence that Lance is a member of a violent street gang. The evidence is irrelevant because the crime charged has nothing to do with gang activities. The evidence would only serve to stir up bias against Lance.
Example: Clare Voyant is charged with car theft. She was arrested in her home, and the prosecution wants to offer evidence that the arresting officer found marijuana and an unregistered handgun there.
Unless the prosecution can establish that the gun and drugs were somehow involved in the theft, there's nothing to connect them with the crime. Again, the evidence would do almost nothing other than predispose the judge or jury against the defendant.
Evidence has to be relevant to have any chance of admissibility, but not all relevant evidence is admissible. Judges often exclude relevant evidence because of some other evidence rule. The fact to which the evidence is directed need not be in dispute. While situations will arise which call for the exclusion of evidence offered to prove a point conceded by the opponent, the ruling should be made on the basis of such considerations as waste of time and undue prejudice see Rule , rather than under any general requirement that evidence is admissible only if directed to matters in dispute.
Evidence which is essentially background in nature can scarcely be said to involve disputed matter, yet it is universally offered and admitted as an aid to understanding. Charts, photographs, views of real estate, murder weapons, and many other items of evidence fall in this category. A rule limiting admissibility to evidence directed to a controversial point would invite the exclusion of this helpful evidence, or at least the raising of endless questions over its admission.
The language of Rule has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
0コメント