Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rules On Evidence
Rules On Evidence
History
Ancient and medieval law
The Old Testament demanded at least two witnesses for conviction of a crime.[2][3]
Ancient Roman law allowed freedom to judges to evaluate evidence, but insisted that
"proof is incumbent on the party who affirms a fact, not on him who denies it" and "no-
one should be convicted on suspicion".[4] Medieval Roman law developed an elaborate
grading of degrees of evidence. Building on the Biblical two-witness rule, it concluded
that a single witness, or private documents, could constitute half-proof, which though
insufficient for conviction might justify torture to extract further evidence.[4]:26–7, 59 Because
evidence in the continental (civil law) system was evaluated by judges rather than juries,
that system did not develop exclusionary rules of evidence in the way English law did.
Anglophone (Common) law
A distinct feature of English common law historically was the role of the jury as a finder
of fact, as opposed to the role of the judge as finder of law. [5] The creation of modern
jury trials in the 16th and 17th centuries necessitated rules of evidence to regulate what
testimony and other evidence could be put before the jury. [6] While much of the early
common law evidence rules came from judicial decisions, the English Parliament also
played a role. In 1677, Parliament and the Crown enacted the Statute of Frauds and
Perjuries, prohibiting plaintiffs from alleging certain contractual breaches to the jury
unless accompanied by a signed, written instrument. Another early evidence rule was
the prohibition on hearsay, the admission of an out-of-court statement to prove the truth
of what is asserted. In the early 19th Century, Chief Justice Lord Mansfield of the Court
of Common Pleas stated:
"In Scotland and most of the continental states, the judges determine upon the facts in
dispute as well as upon the law ; and they think there is no danger in their listening to
evidence of hearsay, because, when they come to consider their judgment on the merits
of the case, they can trust themselves entirely to disregard the hearsay evidence, or to
give it any little weight which it may seem to deserve. But in England, where the jury are
the sole judges of the fact, hearsay evidence is properly excluded, because no man can
tell what effect it might have upon their minds."[7]
Hearsay rules have subsequently been updated numerous times. Most recently
in England and Wales, the Civil Evidence Act 1995, section 1, specifically allows for
admission of 'hearsay' evidence; legislation also allows for 'hearsay' evidence to be
used in criminal proceedings, which makes it possible for the accuser to induce friends
or family to give false evidence in support of their accusations because, normally, it
would be rejected by the presiding authority or judge. There are several examples
where presiding authorities are not bound by the rules of evidence. These include
the military tribunals in the United States and tribunals used in Australia to try health
professionals.
Exclusion of evidence
See also: Public policy doctrines for the exclusion of relevant
evidence and Exclusionary rule
Unfairness
Under English law, evidence that would otherwise be admissible at trial may be
excluded at the discretion of the trial judge if it would be unfair to the defendant to admit
it.
Evidence of a confession may be excluded because it was obtained by oppression or
because the confession was made in consequence of anything said or done to the
defendant that would be likely to make the confession unreliable. In these
circumstances, it would be open to the trial judge to exclude the evidence of the
confession under Section 78(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE),
or under Section 73 PACE, or under common law, although in practice the confession
would be excluded under section 76 PACE.[13]
Other admissible evidence may be excluded, at the discretion of the trial judge under 78
PACE, or at common law, if the judge can be persuaded that having regard to all the
circumstances including how the evidence was obtained "admission of the evidence
would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court
ought not to admit it."[13]
In the United States and other countries, evidence may be excluded from a trial if it is
the result of illegal activity by law enforcement, such as a search conducted without a
warrant. Such illegal evidence is known as the fruit of the poisonous tree and is
normally not permitted at trial.
Authentication
Certain kinds of evidence, such as documentary evidence, are subject to the
requirement that the offeror provide the trial judge with a certain amount of evidence
(which need not be much and it need not be very strong) suggesting that the offered
item of tangible evidence (e.g., a document, a gun) is what the offeror claims it is.
This authentication requirement has import primarily in jury trials. If evidence of
authenticity is lacking in a bench trial, the trial judge will simply dismiss the evidence as
unpersuasive or irrelevant. Other kinds of evidence can be self-authenticating and
require nothing to prove that the item is tangible evidence. Examples of self-
authenticating evidence includes signed and certified public documents, newspapers,
and acknowledged documents.[14]
Witnesses
In systems of proof based on the English common law tradition, almost all evidence
must be sponsored by a witness, who has sworn or solemnly affirmed to tell the truth.
The bulk of the law of evidence regulates the types of evidence that may be sought from
witnesses and the manner in which the interrogation of witnesses is conducted such as
during direct examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Other types of
evidentiary rules specify the standards of persuasion (e.g., proof beyond a reasonable
doubt) that a trier of fact—whether judge or jury—must apply when it assesses
evidence.
Today all persons are presumed to be qualified to serve as witnesses in trials and other
legal proceedings, and all persons are also presumed to have a legal obligation to serve
as witnesses if their testimony is sought. However, legal rules sometimes exempt
people from the obligation to give evidence and legal rules disqualify people from
serving as witnesses under some circumstances.
Privilege rules give the holder of the privilege a right to prevent a witness from giving
testimony. These privileges are ordinarily (but not always) designed to protect socially
valued types of confidential communications. Some of the privileges that are often
recognized in various U.S. jurisdictions are spousal privilege, attorney–client
privilege, doctor–patient privilege, state secrets privilege, and clergy–penitent privilege.
A variety of additional privileges are recognized in different jurisdictions, but the list of
recognized privileges varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; for example, some
jurisdictions recognize a social worker–client privilege and other jurisdictions do not.
Witness competence rules are legal rules that specify circumstances under which
persons are ineligible to serve as witnesses. For example, neither a judge nor a juror is
competent to testify in a trial in which the judge or the juror serves in that capacity; and
in jurisdictions with a dead man statute, a person is deemed not competent to testify as
to statements of or transactions with a deceased opposing party.
Often, a Government or Parliamentary Act will govern the rules affecting the giving of
evidence by witnesses in court. An example is the Evidence Act (NSW) 1995 which sets
out the procedures for witnesses to follow in New South Wales, Australia.[15]
Hearsay
Main article: Hearsay
Hearsay is one of the largest and most complex areas of the law of evidence in
common-law jurisdictions. The default rule is that hearsay evidence is inadmissible.
Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. A
party is offering a statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted if the party is trying
to prove that the assertion made by the declarant (the maker of the out-of-trial
statement) is true. For example, prior to trial Bob says, "Jane went to the store." If the
party offering this statement as evidence at trial is trying to prove that Jane actually
went to the store, the statement is being offered to prove the truth of the matter
asserted. However, at both common law and under evidence codifications such as
the Federal Rules of Evidence, there are dozens of exemptions from and exceptions to
the hearsay rule.
Burdens of proof
Main article: Legal burden of proof
Different types of proceedings require parties to meet different burdens of proof, the
typical examples being beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence, and
preponderance of the evidence. Many jurisdictions have burden-shifting provisions,
which require that if one party produces evidence tending to prove a certain point, the
burden shifts to the other party to produce superior evidence tending to disprove it.
One special category of information in this area includes things of which the court may
take judicial notice. This category covers matters that are so well known that the court
may deem them proved without the introduction of any evidence. For example, if a
defendant is alleged to have illegally transported goods across a state line by driving
them from Boston to Los Angeles, the court may take judicial notice of the fact that it is
impossible to drive from Boston to Los Angeles without crossing a number of state lines.
In a civil case, where the court takes judicial notice of the fact, that fact is deemed
conclusively proved. In a criminal case, however, the defense may always submit
evidence to rebut a point for which judicial notice has been taken.
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(law)