Law of evidence (United States)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the law of the United States , the law of evidence refers to a field of law that decides on the admissibility of evidence in trial (main proceedings). The area of ​​law has no direct equivalent in the continental European legal systems, but is one of the most important areas of law in the United States. It acquires its special importance on the one hand through the possibility of jury trials not only in criminal proceedings but also in civil proceedings and on the other hand through the validity of the adversarial procedural model (in particular with examination-in-chief and cross-examination ) even in criminal matters. The rules of evidence are intended to prevent the jury made up of lay judges from being misled by misleading evidence.

Legal sources and main areas

Each state has its own Rules of Evidence. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) apply at the federal level . The main areas of the law of evidence include: 1. relevance, including the admissibility of character evidence (~ repute proof), 2. the examination of witnesses (witnesses) including the vibration of their credibility (impeachment of witnesses), and 3. the rules on admissibility of persuasion hearsay (hearsay evidence).

Relevance

According to Rule 401 FRE, evidence is relevant that has some tendency to make a fact of importance appear more or less likely than without the evidence and at the same time has consequences for the procedure. For this, the evidence must be material and probative . Relevant evidence is always permissible according to Rule 402 FRE, unless there is an exception. Exceptionally, the court may not admit relevant evidence, even without an explicit exception, if the probative value is outweighed by one of the following five final factors:

  1. unfair prejudice (~ unreasonable prejudice) is intended to prevent the jury from deciding on the case due to strong emotional pressure, for example from pictures of a dead person or the like;
  2. confusing the issues (change of the evidence topic) should prevent unnecessary sideline scenes from opening up,
  3. misleading the jury is supposed to prevent the jury from attaching too much weight to a piece of evidence;
  4. undue delay (~ undue delay);
  5. wasting time, or
  6. unduly cumulative (~ undue duplication).

Character evidence

As character evidence the US law FRE 404 refers to Rule evidence by documents or testimony that a person has acted in accordance with a certain characteristic (for example, peacefulness, honesty, violence tilt). Character evidence is allowed in the following cases:

  1. character trait is an essential element of the process;
  2. character as circustantial evidence;
  3. the character of a witness (not the accused or defendant) to shake his credibility (Rule 608 FRE).

Basically, the prosecution (prosecutor) in criminal matters do not easily make the character of the accused to prove that the accused acted in the act in accordance with this trait (Rule 404 (1) FRE). Makes the defense but the good character (good character) of the accused about the charges can evidence in rebuttal (FRE 404 (2)). There are basically two ways of proving the character of a person: by testimony about the person's reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion (FRE 405 (a) ). The prosecution can provide evidence to the contrary by another witness; she can also cross-examine the same witness. It can also ask him to his knowledge about certain specific events about the behavior of the accused, but cannot use extrinsic evidence to raise any further evidence about these specific events. The counter-evidence may only be limited to the character trait in question.

In civil cases, evidence of good repute to prove the conduct at a specific point in time is not permitted. Exceptionally, it is permissible in civil law cases if the defendant character is the subject of the proceedings, for example in cases of negligent hiring , negligent entrustment , defamation (as libel or as slander ) and in cases of custody. Unlike in criminal cases, the evidence is not only admissible as evidence of reputation or opinion, but according to FRE 405 (b) also as a testimony about behavior in certain situations.

According to FRE 404 (b), the prosecution may not offer extrinsic evidence of specific previous instances of misconduct as evidence that the defendant has also committed this new crime: the jury should not come to the conclusion "Once a criminal, always a criminal." There are usually exceptions according to FRE 404 (b) (2). The most common are:

  • to prove the motive of the act,
  • to prove the intent of the act,
  • to prove that the perpetrator was not subject to error during the inspection,
  • to prove that the perpetrator repeatedly pursues the same crime pattern,
  • to prove the identity of the perpetrator.

The standard of proof for this is merely sufficient evidence. In criminal cases, the FRE 404 (b) (2) prosecution must give the court reasonable notice before the trial that they intend to use such evidence. The court can also always exclude the evidence according to FRE 403.

Habits and routines

The habit or routine according to FRE 406 must be distinguished from the character evidence . Habit is circumstantial evidence to prove a person's behavior towards a certain event. The prerequisites for admissibility are frequency and specificity of habit.

Witnesses

Dead Man Statute

After Rule 601-603 FRE each person can be a witness, unless they own knowledge (personal knowledge) has and an oath is taken. Exceptions apply in some states according to the so-called Dead Man Statute. According to this rule, no one can testify against the estate of a deceased in civil proceedings through communication between him and the deceased who has an interest in the outcome of the proceedings. The sense of the rule is not to give the witness any undue advantage over the estate : The latter can no longer name the deceased as a witness. This regulation does not exist at the federal level.

Impeachment

As impeachment evidence is considered that a witness for some reason is not credible. According to FRE 608 ff., The credibility of a witness can be attacked by the following operations (impeachment):

  1. previous inconsistent statements
  2. Bias, interest in the outcome of the case or a motive for misrepresenting the facts;
  3. Lack of sense;
  4. contradicting statement;
  5. the bad reputation of the witness or the bad opinion of the witness's love of truth;
  6. criminal convictions;
  7. other bad acts that cast doubt on the witness's love of truth.

Earlier inconsistent statements can be brought into the main proceedings through both cross-examination and extrinsic evidence. However, two conditions have to extrinsic evidence for not more compatible statement be met: There must be a basis (foundation) are made and the statement must be relevant to the case. For the basis, in turn, three conditions must be met: According to FRE 613 (b), he must have the opportunity to explain or deny his statement and the other party must have the opportunity to question him about the statement.

The need for a foundation (foundation) , however, three exceptions: It does not apply to an opposing party's statement to FRE 801 (d) (2), it does not apply to the incompatible statement on hearsay and it is finally to FRE 613 (b) not when justice requires it.

The earlier incompatible testimony can not only be introduced to impeach the witness: it can also be used as evidence in the matter if it fulfills the requirements of a hearsay exclusion.

Hearsay (hearsay)

A hearsay is any statement made outside of the legal proceedings that the declaring party has not made during his testimony in the ongoing hearing or hearing and is made to prove an alleged fact (cf. FRE 801 (a) - (c)). Hearsay is generally not permitted (FRE 802). This is justified by the fact that the declarant is not available for cross-examination. This prohibition exclusions exist (exclusions) and exceptions (exceptions). Exclusions are not a hearsay; Exceptions are hearsay, but exceptionally permitted.

Exclusions (also non-hearsay ) are:

  • earlier statements on the identification of persons (FRE 801 (d) (1) (C));
  • earlier statements contradict the current one under oath (FRE 801 (d) (1) (A));
  • earlier consistent statements on the witness's rehabilitation (FRE 801 (d) (1) (B)).
  • every statement by the other party (formerly known as admission , ~ concession) (FRE 801 (d) (2)).

So- called adoptive statements also fall into the latter category . Adoptive statements are statements , express or implied, by the other party that agree with the statement of a third party. Under this doctrine, the silence on the testimony of a third party in the process can also be used (with the exception of criminal proceedings), if

  1. the other party heard and understood his statement,
  2. the other party could contradict his statement and,
  3. a reasonable person would have contradicted the statement.

The admissions by party opponent also include so-called vicarious statements (~ statements by representatives). According to this, the statements of an authorized spokesman, a representative or employee, a partner in a partnership and a co-conspirator do not count as hearsay, but fall into the group of exclusions . The statements of a co-defendant or co-defendant , however, do not count in this group .

Exceptions to the inadmissibility of hearsay can be divided into two categories: those with available explanatory and those with unavailable explanatory (FRE 804). Exceptions with an available explanatory note are:

  • earlier testimony under oath,
  • statement against interest: The witness reports on the testimony of a declarer who is not available for the proceedings; the content of the traditional testimony is against his property interests or against his financial interests or would expose him to criminal prosecution. The statement against interest is to be distinguished from the admission .
  • Declaration in anticipation of immediate death (dying declaration), but only if it concerns the circumstances of one's own death,
  • Information on personal or family history,
  • Declaration against the party who caused the declaring party to be unavailable.

Exceptions for which the availability of the declarer is not relevant are:

  • Utterances excited (excited Utterances)
  • current sensations (present sense impressions)
  • current state of mind (present state of mind)
  • Declaration of physical condition,
  • business records ,
  • official records ,
  • Documents created before January 1, 1998 (ancient documents),
  • Property interest documents,
  • learned treatises ,
  • the reputation of a person
  • Family documents (for example in a family Bible),
  • Market reports.

Privileges (right to testify and refuse to testify)

Spouses have special privileges when they are to take the stand. Spousal immunity and privilege for confidential communications. The former only applies in criminal proceedings and prevents the current spouse from being heard as a witness against their will. The spouse alone has the privilege . In civil and criminal proceedings, the latter only prevents the spouse-witness from being asked certain questions that concern the core area of ​​marital communication. In contrast to spousal privilege, the marriage does not have to exist at the time of the testimony, but at the time of the marital communication.

Overview of the differences in criminal and civil proceedings

Evidence Criminal proceedings Civil proceedings
Judicial notice (~ obvious facts) binding for the jury not binding on the jury
Evidence of Reputation Prosecutors cannot provide evidence of repute on their own initiative always inadmissible, unless the reputation is central to the proceedings
Dying declaration only permitted in the case of homicides always permissible

literature

  • George L. Blum; John Bourdeau; Noah J. Gordon; Eleanor L. Grossman; Jill Gustafson; Glenda K. Harnad; Sonja Larsen; Lucas Martin; Kristina E. Music Biro; Karl Oakes; Karen L. Schultz; Jeffrey J. Shampo; Eric C. Surette; and Barbara J. Van Arsdale: Evidence . In: American Jurisprudence . 2nd Edition. tape 29 (English).
  • Francis C. Amendola, John Bourdeau, James L. Buchwalter, Paul M. Coltoff, William H. Danne, Jr., John J. Dvorske, MA, Edward K. Esping, Christine M. Gimeno, John Glenn, Glenda K. Harnad , Alan J. Jacobs, Janice Holben, Rachel M. Kane, John R. Kennel, Sonja Larsen, Stephen Lease, Jack K. Levin, William Lindsley, Lucas Martin, Eric Mayer, Tom Muskus, Karl Oakes, Eric C. Surette, Barbara J. Van Arsdale: Criminal Law: Nouns Principles Summary . In: Corpus Juris Secundum . 31A (English).

Web links