BY: Dr. Peter A. Barone, Esq.
Methods of Assessment for Admissibility of Evidence
After evidence has been located, collected, impounded, and presented to the prosecutor for use in proving the elements of the crimes being charged in a criminal case the prosecutor must assess it and decide if it is usable in any criminal hearings and in a criminal trial. Once this has been accomplished the prosecutor will follow the required procedures in the rules of evidence to have the items of evidence admitted into evidence in either one of the aforementioned criminal proceedings. It is at this time that all of the evidence being presented to be admitted must be put through an assessment process by the judge wherein the judge will assess the evidence to determine its admissibility into a hearing or trial as evidence. The judge is the only one that can admit evidence into a hearing or a trial as evidence. Understanding the manner in which evidence is determined by the judge to be relevant and admissible or non-relevant and inadmissible is critical to the successful performance of law enforcement officials at all levels.
Relevant Evidence
It is important to fully understand that all evidence has the potential to be admissible; however, it must meet standards, and one of them it that is must have relevance to the case and the issue at hand. When discussing relevance there must be an understanding by law enforcement officers that for an item to admitted into evidence, any legal proceeding or in a trial it must be what is known in law as Relevant Evidence which means that it must be evidence that has any tendency to prove or disprove a pertinent fact relating to the issue at hand (Hails, 2012).
All of the evidence which is admitted into evidence in a legal proceeding must be related to the issues of the case being litigated and if evidence is not related or connected to the case it should not be admitted. For evidence to be admitted it only need make the existence of a fact of consequence more probable or less probable than it would be without the item being introduced as evidence.
One of the most important benchmark of admissibility is relevance of the evidence to the matter being prosecuted. The Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states, in part states that all relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided in the rules of evidence.
The goal of this rule is to allow parties to present all of the evidence that bears on the issue to be decided, and to keep out all evidence that is immaterial or that lacks what is known as Probative Value. Evidence that is offered to help prove something that is not at issue is immaterial.
EXAMPLE OF EVIDENCE BEING IMMATERIAL
As an example here the fact that a defendant attends church every week is immaterial, and thus irrelevant, to a charge of running a red light. Probative value is a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. For instance, evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder would normally be irrelevant because people who eat spaghetti are not more or less likely to commit murder, as compared with other people. However, if spaghetti sauce were found at the murder scene, the fact that the defendant ate spaghetti that day would have probative value and thus would be relevant evidence.
EXAMPLE OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE
An example of Relevant Evidence would be the testimonial evidence of a witness who observed a man breaking into a building during the night would be relevant evidence to prove a burglary. In addition, if a friend testified that the same man who was breaking into the building was supposed to be at work during the time of the burglary; however, this friend advised that the man called in sick that particular night and was not working like he was supposed to be. This statement would be considered to be testimonial evidence and would also be considered to be relevant evidence due to the fact that it would demonstrate that the man was not at work and could have been somewhere else and possibly committing the burglary.
However, if there was no vehicle seen at the scene of the burglary and no one saw this person of interest with a car, near a car or a car in the area of the burglary and the same man that advised that the person of interest was not at work advises that this person drives a blue 4 door Camaro. This information would not be relevant to the case and would not be admissible due to it not having any tendency to prove or disprove a pertinent fact or issue at hand. On the other hand, if the same friend advised that he did not see the person of interest at work that night and that he drives a blue 4 door Camaro that the person of interest always parks next to him and the night of the burglary he did not see the blue Camaro when he arrived at work, when he left for lunch and when he left at the end of his shift.
EXAMPLE OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE NOT BEING ADMISSIBLE DUE TO BEING PREJUDICIAL
The major reason for admitting evidence in a legal proceeding such as a Motion to Dismiss; Preliminary Hearing, or a Trial is to provide the jurors with information directly relating to the crime being charged and to determine if the evidence presented by the prosecution can convince the jury as a whole that the person standing trial is guilty of having committed the crimes they are charged with in the indictment or information. Previously, as was presented in chapter one, it as a requirement for jurors to be informed of the facts and issues of the case; however, over the centuries the change has occurred to where the only information the system wants the jurors to know is what is presented to them in the legal proceeding. The other major aspect of this mindset is that the system insists on the jurors being provided information or evidence that is directly relevant to the actual case that is not prejudicial and does not evoke emotion in the jurors so they make a rational decision and not an emotional one. This is why any evidence which will be so inflammatory and such emotion provoking, notwithstanding its relevancy, cannot be admitted due to it prejudicial effect on the jurors.
Sometimes relevant evidence can also be inadmissible and the reason would have nothing to do with it being logically relevant to the issues at hand in the trial. One of the reasons for inadmissibility is if evidence, such as a photograph of a dead victim, has a tendency to unduly prejudice or inflame the minds of the individuals who are sitting on a jury.
A prime example is one that where a murder occurs and the prosecutor attempts to admit photographs of the victim which happen to be really vivid and gruesome of the bloody victim which would depict the victim; however, the prejudice that the picture of the bloody body would outweigh the probative value of the picture by creating a danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant by having them focus on the gory and horrific sight of the blood. It must be remembered that in the United States the defendant is considered to be innocent until proven guilty and this presumption of innocence is paramount in the United States Legal System.
EXAMPLE OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE NOT BEING ADMISSIBLE DUE TO BEING CONFUSING
The same reason as to why relevant evidence cannot and is not supposed to be admitted into a hearing or trial when it is horrific and possesses the potential of causing prejudice towards the accused and would create an unfair environment for the defendant, is why relevant evidence that can cause confusion in the minds of jurors cannot and should not be admitted into evidence in a legal proceeding or trial.
Relevant evidence can also be excluded or inadmissible if the item being admitted could tend to cause confusion or if it can create a number of side issues and that trial time would be squandered if this evidence is admitted into the trial. In addition, evidence can also be excluded if it is so remote or so detached or speculative in time or in place that only a very feeble or weak logical inference can be drawn from it.
Balancing Test for Admissibility of Relevant Evidence
It is the responsibility of the judge in either a Bench Trial or a Jury Trial to determine if evidence meets the test of relevancy and if will be admitted. A Balancing Test must be performed and this is a process and procedure which is conducted by the judge in a hearing or a trial when either the prosecution or defense attempts to present evidence to be admitted into evidence. When the court makes this decision regarding admissibility the judge must examine the evidence to determine if relevant evidence is going to be admitted or excluded due to it being prejudicial, confusing, remote, unfair or otherwise time-consuming. The Federal Rules of Procedure, FRE403, advises that a judge may exclude relevant evidence, in the judge opinion, that the probative value of the evidence being present is substantially outweighed by the danger of some type of unfair prejudice, or some type of confusion of the existing issues at hand which in turn could create unfair prejudice, or misleading the jury, or by some type of undue delay by admitting the evidence being presented.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE
In addition to evidence being assessed via the balancing test to determine its relevancy a second issue is also critical in evidence being admitted into a legal proceeding or trial and that is whether the evidence being presented is Material Evidence. It is extremely important to understand the difference between relevancy and materiality of evidence. The concept of Material Evidence is referred to as whether or not a fact is one of consequence to the actual case at hand. It is important to understand that issues regarding balancing, which are prominent in relevancy, is not included in the definition of materiality; so when speaking of materiality it is appropriate to discuss the concept of materiality or immateriality facts as part of the basic formula for relevance which is the major key in the balancing test and admissibility (Hails, 2012).
As with the determination of relevancy the judge is the individual who is charged with making the determination of whether or not facts are of consequence in a case is or is not material. The federal law and state laws are the ones that defines the elements of a crimes and defenses that in part determine materiality in any given instance when evidence is presented for admission in a hearing or trial. When making this determination the judge must review and examine the information, indictment and complaint in a criminal case because these documents are what set the limits of what is a material fact in any criminal case.
EXAMPLE OF WHAT IS MATERIAL
If a defendant is currently charged and on trial for murder and the prosecutor is attempting to have evidence introduced that would discuss the fact that the defendant possesses a gun collection which contains a very rare .45 caliber six shooter from the 1890’s and used a very special type of black powder load. At the scene of the murder police located a .45 caliber weapon on the scene along with the same type of ammunition which was located in the remaining cylinder of the firearm.
Evidence being presented for admission which demonstrated that the defendant and the victim had a very fierce verbal altercation that came close to escalating to a physical confrontation if it weren’t for mutual friends being present to get between them just a few hours before the victim was found shot would have something to do with the case at hand and would be considered to be material. Evidence of a witness who works next door to the location where the victim was found shot in the head advised that she saw the defendant walking swiftly from the doorway leading to where the victim was shot just after she heard what she believed to be a gun shot. This would have something to do with the case and would be considered to be material to the case at hand.
EXAMPLE OF WHAT IS NOT MATERIAL
If a defendant is currently charged and on trial for murder and the prosecutor is attempting to have evidence introduced that would discuss the cost of the shoes of the victim was wearing at the time of their death, when this was not a robbery for clothing, and has nothing at all to do with the actual murder, this evidence will be determined to not be material to the case and would be ruled inadmissible.
Reference
Hails, J. (2012). Criminal
Evidence 8th Ed. Stamford, CT.: Cengage Learning. 