Evidence (law)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Rules of evidence)
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Evidence (disambiguation).
"Rules of evidence" redirects here. For the Stone Sour song, see Stone Sour (album).






The rules of evidence were developed over several centuries and are based upon the rules from Anglo-American common law brought to the New World by early settlers. Their purpose is to be fair to both parties, disallowing the raising of allegations without a basis in provable fact. They are sometimes criticized as a legal technicality, but are an important part of the system for achieving a just result.

Perhaps the most important of the rules of evidence is that, in general, hearsay testimony is inadmissible (although there are many exceptions to this rule). In the United Kingdom, 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.

Relevance and social policy[edit]

Main article: Relevance (law)





Presence or absence of a jury[edit]

The United States has a very complicated system of evidentiary rules; for example, John Wigmore's celebrated treatise on it filled ten volumes.[4] James Bradley Thayer reported in 1898 that even English lawyers were surprised by the complexity of American evidence law, such as its reliance on exceptions to preserve evidentiary objections for appeal.[5]

Some legal experts, notably Stanford legal historian Lawrence Friedman, have argued that the complexity of American evidence law arises from two factors: (1) the right of American defendants to have findings of fact made by a jury in practically all criminal cases as well as many civil cases; and (2) the widespread consensus that tight limitations on the admissibility of evidence are necessary to prevent a jury of untrained laypersons from being swayed by irrelevant distractions.[6] In Professor Friedman's words: "A trained judge would not need all these rules; and indeed, the law of evidence in systems that lack a jury is short, sweet, and clear."[7] However, Friedman's views are characteristic of an earlier generation of legal scholars. The majority of people now reject the formerly-popular proposition that the institution of trial by jury is the main reason for the existence of rules of evidence even in countries such as the United States and Australia; they argue that other variables[clarification needed] are at work.[8]

Exclusion of evidence[edit]







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.[11]








Main article: Hearsay


Direct vs. Circumstantial evidence[edit]

Direct evidence is any evidence that directly proves or disproves a fact. The most well-known type of direct evidence is a testimony from an eye witness. In eye-witness testimonies the witness states exactly what they experienced, saw, or heard. Direct evidence may also be found in the form of documents. In cases that involve a breach of contract, the contract itself would be considered direct evidence as it can directly prove or disprove that there was breach of contract. Circumstantial evidence, however, is evidence that does not point directly to a fact and requires an inference in order to prove that fact. A real-world example of this is when someones fingerprints are found in a stolen car. This is circumstantial evidence because it places them in the car but it will require more thinking in order to determine if they were the one to actually steal it.[13]

Burdens of proof[edit]

Main article: Legal burden of proof



Evidential rules stemming from other areas of law[edit]


Evidence as an area of study[edit]



Tampering, falsification, and spoliation[edit]

Acts that conceal, corrupt, or destroy evidence can be considered spoliation of evidence and/or tampering with evidence. Spoliation is usually the civil-law/due-process variant, may involve intent or negligence, may affect the outcome of a case in which the evidence is material, and may or may not result in criminal prosecution. Tampering is usually the criminal law variant in which a person alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys evidence to interfere with a law-enforcement, governmental, or regulatory investigation, and is usually defined as a crime. Parallel construction is the creation of an untruthful, but plausible, explanation for how the evidence came to be held, which hides its true origins, either to protect sources and methods used, or to avoid the evidence being excluded as unlawfully obtained. Depending on the circumstances, acts to conceal or destroy evidence or misrepresent its true origins might be considered both tampering and spoliation.

By jurisdiction[edit]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ "Trier of Fact". Merriam Webster Legal Dictionary. Retrieved 15 September 2016. 
  2. ^ "Federal Rules of Evidence". homepages.law.asu.edu. Retrieved 2016-07-06. 
  5. ^ Friedman, 300.
  6. ^ Friedman, 301.
  9. ^ WikiCrimeLine Confession
  10. ^ Exclusion of evidence on grounds of unfairness
  11. ^ Staff, LII (2011-11-30). "Rule 902. Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2016-09-17. 
  12. ^ Evidence Act(NSW) 1995 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/.
  13. ^ "What is circumstantial evidence? What is direct evidence? | Rottenstein Law Group LLP". www.rotlaw.com. Retrieved 2016-09-16. 

External links[edit]