Admissibility of Evidence
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. 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.
Reference
Reference
Garner, B.A. (2009). Black’s Law Dictionary 9th ed. St. Paul MN: West Publishing.
