[wd_asp id=1]
In this lesson, you will learn the meaning of relevant, reliable, and properly admissible evidence.
Admissible Evidence
- RELEVANT – Evidence that makes the existence of a material fact more or less probable.
- RELIABLE – Evidence that proves or disproves a material fact without misleading the jury.
- PROPER – Evidence that is legal to present in court, is fair, nonprejudicial, and understandable.
Transcript
Evidence must be admissible to be of any value to you.
Admissible evidence is that which is formally presented before a judge or a jury to consider in deciding a case.
To be admissible in court, that evidence must be relevant, it must be proper, and it must be reliable so that a judge or jury can make decisions based on it. Let\’s discuss each of those characteristics.
To be considered relevant, your evidence must make the existence of a fact important to the case either more or less probable.
That is, it must be closely connected or at least logically related to the matter at issue. Now it doesn\’t have to make a particular fact certain, but it must at least tend to increase or decrease the likelihood of a material fact.
Evidence is considered material if it\’s offered to prove a factual dispute in your case.
Once admitted as relevant evidence, the judge or the jury can determine how much weight to give to it.
Now secondly, your evidence must be proper.
Proper evidence is that which is legal to present in court. It is fair, it\’s non-prejudicial, and it\’s understandable on its face.
For instance, privileged information might be relevant to your case, but it\’s not proper to present it in court because it\’s privileged.
Evidence that arouses a jury\’s outrage or its prejudices without adding any material information is often excluded as improper.
Evidence can be barred if it\’s overkill. The judge or jury doesn\’t have to hear from 10 different witnesses saying the same thing. One or two is fine. The others would be excluded as improper.
Thirdly, to be admissible, evidence must be reliable.
And reliability is the extent to which your evidence proves or disproves an issue in dispute without misleading the trier of fact.
That is, it must be evidence from which a fact finder – that is, a judge or a jury – could legitimately infer that your evidence is what you claim it to be. For example, a photograph is far more likely to be admissible if it\’s presented by a trusted sworn witness who says that he took the photograph.
That\’s far more likely to be admissible than it would be by a person who says someone else said they took that photograph.
In fact, the latter is called \”hearsay\”. And hearsay is generally excluded as evidence because the real source of the information can\’t be cross-examined. It\’s he-said she-said stuff, and it\’s not as reliable as firsthand information.