Monthly Archives: July 2024

Rules of Evidence Summary

Posted on by
Reply

    The following contents about evidence and rules of evidence are summarised from various sources as shown in inline hyperlinks and references below.

    Trial and Evidence

    • Trial: A trial is a formal legal proceeding where legal claims are presented, evidence is examined, and witnesses are heard. It is overseen by a judge, jury, or other adjudicator who determines the guilt or innocence of a party in a criminal case or the outcome of a dispute in a civil case. Trials adhere to established legal procedures and rules of evidence, operating as an adversary proceeding in court.
    • Evidence: an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable.
    • Rules of Evidence: As the name indicates, the rules by which a court determines what evidence is admissible at trial. In the U.S., federal courts follow the Federal Rules of Evidence, while state courts generally follow their own rules, such as the Maryland Rules of Evidence.

    Burden and standard of proof

    The following contents are excerpted from ICRL, The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales:

    • The standard of proof is the degree to which a party must prove its case to succeed. The burden of proof, sometimes known as the “onus”, is the requirement to satisfy that standard.
      1. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and the standard required of them is that they prove the case against the defendant “beyond reasonable doubt”. For the benefit of the jury in the Crown Court, this is usually expressed as requiring them to be “satisfied so that you are sure” of the defendant’s guilt. This is unofficially described as the 99% test.
      2. In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the claimant, and the standard required of them is that they prove the case against the defendant “on a balance of probabilities”. This is unofficially described as the 51% test.
    • Exceptions
      1. In certain circumstances, the burden will fall on or shift to the other party. For example, in criminal cases in which a defence of insanity is raised, it is for the defence to establish it on a balance of probabilities, ie to the civil standard.
      2. In civil cases where there is a preliminary issue, for example as to jurisdiction, the burden is sometimes expressed as “a good arguable case” or “much the better of the argument”. That is because, in such cases, the court is not in a position to weigh the evidence in its totality and must make a necessarily interim assessment.

    Direct and Circumstantial Evidence

    • Direct Evidence
      1. Direct evidence is evidence of a fact based on a witness’s personal knowledge of that fact acquired by means of the witness’s senses.
      2. Direct evidence may prove guilt of a charged offense or liability for a civil wrong if, standing alone, that evidence satisfies a jury that guilt of the offense has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt or that liability for a civil wrong has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence or other applicable burden of proof.
      3. In a criminal proceeding, a defendant’s confession of guilt constitutes direct evidence. A defendant’s admission, not amounting to a confession because it does not directly acknowledge guilt but includes inculpatory statements from which a jury may infer guilt, is circumstantial evidence.
      4. A confession acknowledges complete guilt, while an admission only accepts some connection to the case. A confession can lead to a conviction on its own, but an admission alone does not prove guilt. (The Legal Buddies LLC.)
    • Circumstantial Evidence
      1. Circumstantial evidence is direct evidence of a fact from which a person may reasonably infer the existence or nonexistence of another fact.
      2. Circumstantial evidence may prove guilt of a charged offense or liability for a civil wrong, if that evidence, while not directly establishing guilt of the offense or liability for a civil wrong, gives rise to an inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or of liability for the civil wrong by a preponderance of the evidence or other applicable burden of proof.

    Real and Demonstrative Evidence

    • “Real Evidence” refers to any tangible object or sound recording of a conversation that is
      offered in evidence.
    • “Demonstrative evidence” refers to a visual, graphic, or sound aid used to explain or
      illustrate a witness’s testimony or the presentation of the proponent’s case.

    Testify, Witness, and Testimony

    • Testify: to give one’s testimony under oath as a witness; to give evidence as a witness.
    • Witness: In legal proceedings, witnesses can serve as sources of evidence, offering firsthand accounts that can corroborate or refute claims made by parties involved. Expert witnesses: who possess specialized knowledge and who are called upon to provide expert testimony within their area of expertise. Lay witnesses: Individuals with personal knowledge of the matter. (aka eye witness)
    • Testimony: Testimony is oral or written evidence given by the witness under oath, affidavit, or deposition during a trial or other legal procedures.

    Out of Court

    • Out of court: Not before the court. Actions, including negotiations between parties or their attorneys, without any direct involvement of a judge or the judicial system.
    • Hearsay: 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.
    • Police lineup: A police lineup (in American English) or identity parade (in British English) is a process by which a crime victim or witness’s putative identification of a suspect is confirmed to a level that can count as evidence at trial. (Wikipedia)
    • Settlement: an agreement that ends a dispute and results in the voluntary dismissal of any related litigation. Regardless of the exact terms, many parties choose to keep their settlement agreements private.

    Rules of Evidence

    • Hearsay rule: the rule prohibiting hearsay (out of court statements offered as proof of that statement) from being admitted as evidence because of the inability of the other party to cross-examine the maker of the statement. (Legal Information Institute)
      1. Hearsay is not admissible unless it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.
      2. There are a number of exceptions to the hearsay rule (including present-sense impression, excited utterances, declarations of present state of mind, dying and the business records exceptions), as well as things defined not to be hearsay (admission of a party-opponent, and prior statements of a witness).
      3. If it is hearsay, is it nonetheless not excluded by the hearsay rule, because it qualifies under an exception to that rule (Md. Rule 5-803-804)?
      4. Rule 803 – Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay–Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness
      5. Business Records Exception to Hearsay: Most documents are hearsay because they record what others did and said, and are generally maintained by someone who was not involved in matters in the records. There is an exception to the hearsay rules for business records.(Public Health Law Map – Beta 5.7)
    • Parol evidence rule
      1. The parol evidence rule is a rule in common law jurisdictions limiting the kinds of evidence parties to a contract dispute can introduce when trying to determine the specific terms of a contract and precluding parties who have reduced their agreement to a final written document from later introducing other evidence, such as the content of oral discussions from earlier in the negotiation process, as evidence of a different intent as to the terms of the contract.
      2. The rule provides that “extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to vary a written contract”. The term “parol” derives from the Anglo-Norman French parol or parole, meaning “word of mouth” or “verbal”, and in medieval times referred to oral pleadings in a court case.
    • Best evidence rule: The best evidence rule is a legal principle that holds an original of a document as superior evidence. The rule specifies that secondary evidence, such as a copy or facsimile, will be not admissible if an original document exists and can be obtained.

    References