Rules of evidence
Rules of evidence are a set of legal principles that govern what information can be presented in court during trials. These rules are essential to ensuring that trials run smoothly and that jurors make decisions based on reliable evidence, rather than personal biases or misinformation. Historically, rules of evidence have evolved alongside the jury trial system, transitioning from a time when jurors could rely on their own knowledge to a more structured framework requiring evidence-based decision-making.
The Federal Rules of Evidence, established in 1975, provide a standardized approach for federal courts, while state courts often develop their own rules influenced by these federal guidelines. There are two main types of evidence: direct evidence, which directly proves a fact, and circumstantial evidence, which requires inference. The admissibility of evidence hinges on its relevance and competence, with specific criteria determining whether evidence is appropriate for consideration by juries.
Character evidence, hearsay, and various exceptions to standard rules also play critical roles in trials, influencing how cases are argued and decided. For instance, while character evidence is generally limited in criminal trials, certain exceptions allow for its introduction under specific circumstances. Understanding these rules is vital for anyone involved in legal proceedings, as they directly impact the pursuit of justice.
Rules of evidence
SIGNIFICANCE: Proper application of the rules of evidence ensures that trials proceed in an orderly and predictable manner that best serves the goal of achieving just verdicts.
The rules of evidence evolved along with the jury trial system, which itself developed through history from a system in which jurors made their own findings of fact or based their decisions on their own knowledge, to the present system in which jurors are sworn to make decisions based solely on evidence presented at trial. To achieve that goal, it has been necessary to develop rules so that untrained jurors are not misled. Rules regulating various forms of evidence began to develop during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and continued developing thereafter.
The rules of evidence long existed independently in the form of judicial decisions, mandates, and separate statutes until 1975, when they were codified or brought together as statutes under the Federal Rules of Evidence. These rules govern procedures in the federal courts but are inapplicable in state court proceedings. The states have their own rules of evidence but frequently use the federal rules as models for their rules.
Types of Evidence
The two basic types of evidence are direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence tends to show the existence of facts in question without additional proof. Establishment of a fact is based on the credibility or value of the evidence. Circumstantial evidence requires that fact-finders make inferences or draw conclusions. An example of circumstantial evidence is snow on the ground that one sees after waking on a morning after a clear and dry day. Although the observer did not actually see the snow fall, it would be reasonable for the observer to infer a snow fall occurred during the night.
Testimonial evidence is based on the testimony of witnesses; nontestimonial evidence is based on physical objects presented as exhibits. Nontestimonial evidence may be real—actual physical objects from crime scenes—or demonstrative—objects used to assist fact-finders understand other testimony, such as maps or diagrams of crime scenes.
Admissibility of Evidence
The admissibility of evidence at trial depends on the rules. Fact-finders are permitted to evaluate only admissible evidence. Moreover, relevant evidence is admissible only if it is deemed competent. Relevant evidence must tend to prove or disprove disputed issues of consequence. Irrelevant evidence wastes time, confuses juries, and is often prejudicial.
Instances sometimes occur when relevant evidence is ruled inadmissible because its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion. Probative evidence tends to prove something of importance to the case. Relevant evidence that has little probative value is immaterial and should be excluded.
Materiality is part of the concept of relevancy under the federal rules but is defined as evidence tending to make the existence of facts more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Evidence must also be competent (legally adequate) to be admissible. For example, for the evidence of witnesses to be considered competent, the witnesses must swear oaths affirming that they will testify truthfully. Nonexpert witnesses are limited to testimony about what they have personally seen or heard. Any opinions or conclusions they may express are considered incompetent. Witnesses who are experts through special training, knowledge, or experience may offer opinions or conclusions based on their expert knowledge. It is for juries to determine what value, if any, to place upon the testimony of competent witnesses, lay or expert.
Character Evidence
Human character is a collection of traits and features that make up individual person’s disposition or nature, evidenced by consistent patterns of behavior. Character traits include such positive things as honesty, courage, and integrity and such negative traits as dishonesty, violence, and recklessness. In criminal cases, character evidence is generally not admissible to prove conduct to show that a person has acted in conformity on a particular occasion.
The prosecution cannot introduce evidence of a defendant’s bad character, such as violent tendencies. By contrast, the defense has the option to introduce evidence of good character, such as a history of honest behavior. However, once the defense elects to introduce a character witness to testify about a defendant’s good character, such an actin is said to “open the door” for the prosecution to provide rebuttal evidence. On the other hand, when the defense does not elect to introduce character witnesses, the prosecution may not comment on that fact to the jury.
Since their adoption in 1995, rules 413 and 414 of the Federal Rules of Evidence contradict the basic principles of character evidence. These new rules assert that evidence of similar crimes in sexual assault cases is admissible on any matter to which it is relevant. The same holds true in child molestation cases. However, such evidence must be examined privately, at “in camera” (in chambers) hearings, so that determinations about its admissibility can be made prior to its introduction at trial.
Evidence about particular character traits of victims may be admissible to prove conformity of the victims’ actions. For example, defendants claiming self-defense in murder trials may introduce evidence of their victims’ violent tendencies to support their claims that their victims were the aggressors during the incidents in question.
In sex offense cases, the federal rules prevent use of evidence about the reputations and past sexual behavior of the victims. Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior is also inadmissible, except in three special circumstances. The first is cases in which it is constitutionally required, as in the right to confront adverse witnesses. The second circumstance may arise when the accused need to submit evidence on their alleged victims’ earlier past sexual relationships with others to show that they, the accused, were not the sources of the semen or injuries to the victims. A third circumstance permitting the accused to submit evidence about their victims’ past sexual behavior occurs when such evidence is offered to show the victims’ consent.
Despite the existence of one of these circumstances, the evidence will be reviewed privately to determine whether the probative value outweighs the danger of any unfair prejudice to the victims. In 1978, rule 412 was added to the Federal Rules of Evidence to limit the use of evidence of prior sexual experiences of victims of sexual assault. Up until that time, victims of sexual assault had traditionally been harshly cross-examined and had their morality called into question. In 1994, the rules were further amended to enhance the protections given to victims of sexual assault and were applied to all criminal cases, not merely sex offenses cases, and to civil cases. Rule 412 generally excludes evidence of both the past sexual behavior and sexual predispositions of victims.
Evidence of “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” is not admissible to prove character in order to show conformity, but may be admissible to establish “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” For example, proof of a defendant’s past crimes may be used to establish a pattern or manner of committing offenses (modus operandi). When the prosecution introduces evidence of a defendant’s past crimes, the defense is permitted to introduce rebuttal evidence.
Hearsay Evidence
Hearsay evidence is defined in rule 801(c) of the federal rules as a “statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Hearsay is excluded because the witnesses are not testifying from personal knowledge, but from repetition of what was said or written outside court by other persons who are not present to be cross-examined. Even if the witnesses report what they have heard accurately, it is possible that the out-of-court declarants may have been lying, joking, or speaking carelessly. The latters’ statements have not been made under oath and thus have been expressed without fear of perjury. There is no opportunity to cross-examine the declarants in order to impeach their credibility. Additionally, since the hearsay statement are made out of court, the demeanor of the declarants cannot be observed by the fact-finders.
Additional problems of hearsay evidence are the possibilities that the testifying witnesses may have faulty memories, poor hearings, or other infirmities that may impeded their ability to report what they have heard accurately. For all these reasons, hearsay tends to lack reliability. Exclusion of hearsay testimony from trials prevents unreliable evidence from being considered. It should be noted that statements that would otherwise qualify as hearsay are admissible if they are introduced not to prove the truth of a matter asserted but merely to show that a statement was made.
Numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule make otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence reliable and admissible. One of the most common exceptions is the so-called “present sense impression”—a statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while a declarant is perceiving an event or condition or immediately thereafter. Such statements are admissible because they are believed to have been made instinctively.
The “excited utterance” exception is considered trustworthy because a statement made under stress of a startling event allows no time for fabrication. A statement dealing with a person’s “then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition” can be reported by anyone who heard the statement. Likewise, “statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment” describing pain, symptoms, sensations, and the like are admissible because it is assumed that patients have strong motives to tell the truth.
Statements made by declarants who believe that their deaths are imminent are also admissible. Admissibility of so-called “dying declarations,” or “death-bed” statements, is based on the presumption that people do not lie when confronted with imminent death. This exception applies in homicide cases and civil actions.
Hearsay within hearsay, also called “multiple hearsay” or “totem pole hearsay,” occurs in situations in which hearsay statements contain other hearsay statements and a chain of hearsay exists. In such situations, every link must be examined separately to determine whether each part conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule. This is common in the area of business records and reports.
Bibliography
Dix, George E., et al. McCormick on Evidence. 5th ed. St. Paul: West, 1999. Print.
Hilotin-Lee, Lyle Therese. "What Are the Rules of Evidence?" FindLaw, 14 Aug. 2023, www.findlaw.com/hirealawyer/choosing-the-right-lawyer/evidence-law.html. Accessed 26 June 2024.
Merritt, Deborah Jones, and Ric Simmons. Learning Evidence: From the Federal Rules to the Courtroom. 3rd ed. St. Paul: West Academic, 2015. Print.
Pelliocciotti, Joseph M. Handbook of Basic Trial Evidence: A College Introduction. Bristol: Wyndham Hall, 1992. Print.
Schubert, Frank A. Introduction to Law and the Legal System. 8th ed. Boston: Houghton, 2004. Print.
Stopp, Margaret T. Evidence Law in the Trial Process. Albany: West, 1999. Print.