RULES OF EVIDENCE

LANGUAGE AND LAW II - CATEDRA CHEMEN

RULES OF EVIDENCE

Evidence is the means by which facts are proved and the rules of legal evidence are
concerned with the proof of facts in courts of law. They are designed to determine four main
problems:

1) Who is to assume the burden of proving facts,

2) What facts must be proved,
3) What facts must be excluded from the cognizance of the court,
4) How proof is to be effected.

Federal trials are conducted according to the the Federal Rules of Evidence, which are aimed
to administer every proceeding fairly and eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay in order
to ascertain the truth. (Rule 102) Moreover, each state has its own rules which regulate state
trials and state courts are not bound by federal rules.

1) THE BURDEN OF PROOF (ONUS PROBANDI)

The general principle is that “he who asserts must prove”: That is to say, the plaintiff in a
civil case, and the prosecutor in a criminal proceeding, must put before the court the facts
which substantiate their claim. Whereas in a civil litigation, facts must be proved upon the
balance of probabilities and evidence must be clear and convincing, in a criminal
prosecution, facts must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
In a criminal case it is said that the onus (burden) lies upon the prosecution to rebut the
presumption that the defendant is innocent until the prosecution has established his guilt.
However, if the defendant has some special excuse or means of rebuttal he must prove it,
so in the course of the trial the burden may “shift” to the defendant.

2) FACTS TO BE PROVED

As a general rule, a proponent must furnish evidence of all material facts upon which he
relies to establish his case, but there are exceptions to this rule.
a) Notorious facts: These facts need not be proved, because the court is entitled to take
“judicial notice” of them. E.g: Events which happen in the ordinary course of nature,
historical events.
b) Presumptions: Where certain facts are established they may give rise to a presumption
that other facts follow. Presumptions may be: (i) Irrebutable presumptions of law
(presunción Juris et de Jure: no admiten prueba en contrario), they are rules of law
which the court is not allowed to deny, for example, a child below the age of ten is
incapable of committing a crime; (ii) rebutable presumptions of law (presunción Juris
Tantum), which may be rebutted since the law presumes the existence of a fact until
the contrary is proved, for instance, a law between 10 and 14 is incapable of criminal
intent, but this may be rebutted (displaced) by proof that a particular child is capable
of the intent and (iii) presumptions of fact, these are reasonable inferences arising
from giving facts or circumstances and can always be rebutted by evidence which is
sufficient to refute them.
c) Admissions: In civil proceedings, formal admissions may be made by the parties prior
or during the trial, in the pleadings or orally in court to obviate the necessity of proving
facts which are not in dispute.

3) FACTS TO BE EXCLUDED
RULES OF EVIDENCE
LANGUAGE AND LAW II - CATEDRA CHEMEN

English law only permits proof of facts which are in issue and of facts which are relevant to
the issue.
Facts in issue are those which are in dispute upon the pleadings of a civil action, or the facts
averred in an indictment and denied by a plea of “not guilty”.
A fact is relevant if it goes to prove a material issue in a case. “Relevant evidence” means
evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is a consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence (Rule 401)
Character evidence: In civil actions parties are normally not permitted to give evidence of
their good character. In a criminal case, the general rule is that the prosecutor does not
furnish evidence of bad character of the criminal defendant merely to show that he is more
likely to have committed the crime. However, the accused may admit evidence of his good
character to show his innocence of the alleged crime.

RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY

There are three basic rules concerning the admissibility of evidence. Evidence must be
relevant, material and competent.

Relevancy is the logical connection that one thing has to another. A fact is relevant if it tends
to prove or disprove some consequence that is in dispute. Irrelevant (or impertinent)
evidence is not admissible. e.g: fingerprints on a weapon found at the scene is normally
relevant to a murder case.

Materiality: Evidence must be proven to have bearing on the case. It refers to the probative
value of evidence. Probative evidence tends to prove something important to the case.

Competency means that evidence must meet traditional proofs of reliability. It must be
legally adequate to be admissible.

Even relevant, material and competent evidence can be ruled inadmissible and can be
excluded if the court considers that such evidence is prejudicial, speculative (many different
conclusions can be drawn from it) or that it may confuse the jury.
Evidence can be ruled admissible for one purpose or party and not another.

Federal Rules of Evidence. Relevance and Admissibility

Rule 401 defines relevance as follows:

“Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact
that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable
than it would be without the evidence.”

Relevancy is not an inherent characteristic of any item of evidence but exists only as a
relation between an item of evidence and a matter properly provable in the case. To discover
the relevancy of an offered item of evidence one must first discover to what proposition it is
supposed to be relevant.

Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible

Generally, relevant evidence is admissible. However, relevant evidence is not admissible if

prohibited by:
RULES OF EVIDENCE
LANGUAGE AND LAW II - CATEDRA CHEMEN

 The Constitution,
 An Act of Congress,
 The Federal Rules of Evidence,
 The rules prescribed by the Supreme Court.

Relevance is ordinarily a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition, for the
admissibility of evidence. For example, relevant evidence may be excluded if its tendency to
prove or disprove a fact is heavily outweighed by the possibility that the evidence will
prejudice or confuse the jury.

Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of

Time

Relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of one of the enumerated grounds for exclusion:

 unfair prejudice;
 confusion of the issues;
 misleading the jury;
 considerations of undue delay;
 waste of time; or
 needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Example: If 100 witnesses saw the same accident, and would each give roughly the same
description of the event, the testimony of each would be equally relevant, but it would be a
waste of time or a needless presentation of cumulative evidence to have all 100 repeat the
same facts at trial.

Preservation of the Issue

To preserve legal error for review, objections must be raised. Often objections against the
introduction of evidence are made on the basis of relevance. Since objections are required
to be specific and timely, merely objecting on the basis of relevance, without more, may
prevent the review of legal error on appeal.

Cases that lack specific and timely objections are sometimes referred to as having "poor
records" because errors made by the lower court may not be reviewed on appeal.
RULES OF EVIDENCE
LANGUAGE AND LAW II - CATEDRA CHEMEN

Evidence in court must be fair

reliable
ADMISSIBILITY of evidence in federal courts is governed by the FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE

RELEVANCY: a key aspect when considering evidence

Relevant evidence tends to prove

or a fact in issue
disprove
or
Determine the degree of probability of a fact in issue
or
an action

HOWEVER,
RELEVANT EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMITTED

If its reliability is questionable

or

Its probative value is substantially outweighed

By OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

namely, that such evidence may not be necessary

may distract the jury from the main issues

may mislead the jury

may cause the jury to decide on an emotional basis

COLLOCATIONS:

 Trials are conducted

 To effect proof
 Administer a proceeding fairly
 To ascertain the truth
 The onus (burden) lies upon the prosecution
 To furnish evidence
 To offer evidence
 To submit evidence
 To allow/disallow evidence
 A presumption may be rebutted
 Evidence may be ruled inadmissible
 To raise an objection
 Evidence must be excluded

_____________________________________________________________________
Shears: James’Introduction to English law, 1996
US Federal Rules of Evidence