1. Evidence in Court Holy Trinity Law Audrius Stonkus

2. Evidence The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g., oral or written statements, such as an affidavit) and exhibits (e.g., physical objects) or other documentary material which is admissible (i.e., allowed to be considered by the trier of fact, such as jury) in a judicial or administrative proceeding (e.g., a court of law). The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g., oral or written statements, such as an affidavit) and exhibits (e.g., physical objects) or other documentary material which is admissible (i.e., allowed to be considered by the trier of fact, such as jury) in a judicial or administrative proceeding (e.g., a court of law).law testimonyaffidavit exhibitstrier of factjuryjudicial or administrative proceedingcourtlaw testimonyaffidavit exhibitstrier of factjuryjudicial or administrative proceedingcourt

3. Evidence Your textbook defines “evidence” as follows; “ information that tends to prove or disprove the elements of an offence”. Your textbook defines “evidence” as follows; “ information that tends to prove or disprove the elements of an offence”. This definition is not quite complete because it does not take into account civil cases where there is no necessary “offence”. This definition is not quite complete because it does not take into account civil cases where there is no necessary “offence”. Also that information must be ADMISSIBLE before the court. Also that information must be ADMISSIBLE before the court. It is mainly on the basis of the evidence that a judge or a jury will make its decision on who wins the case. It is mainly on the basis of the evidence that a judge or a jury will make its decision on who wins the case. But also by argument, where a lawyers for the parties will persuade the judge or jury how to interpret the evidence they have heard But also by argument, where a lawyers for the parties will persuade the judge or jury how to interpret the evidence they have heard

4. There are 2 types of evidence; 1) Oral and 2) physical evidence. There are 2 types of evidence; 1) Oral and 2) physical evidence. Oral or spoken evidence is normally presented to a court in the form of sworn testimony by a witness. Oral or spoken evidence is normally presented to a court in the form of sworn testimony by a witness. Oral evidence is in form of answers to question made by lawyers to witnesses. Oral evidence is in form of answers to question made by lawyers to witnesses.

5. Admissibility and Relevance In every jurisdiction based on the English common law tradition, evidence must conform to a number of rules and restrictions to be admissible. Evidence must be relevant – that is, it must have a tendency to make a fact at issue in the proceeding be more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. In every jurisdiction based on the English common law tradition, evidence must conform to a number of rules and restrictions to be admissible. Evidence must be relevant – that is, it must have a tendency to make a fact at issue in the proceeding be more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.relevant However, the relevance of evidence is ordinarily a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for the admissibility of evidence. For example, relevant evidence may be excluded if it is unfairly prejudicial, confusing, or cumulative. However, the relevance of evidence is ordinarily a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for the admissibility of evidence. For example, relevant evidence may be excluded if it is unfairly prejudicial, confusing, or cumulative. Furthermore, a variety of social policies operate to exclude relevant evidence. Thus, there are limitations on the use of evidence of liability insurance, settlement offers, and plea negotiations. Furthermore, a variety of social policies operate to exclude relevant evidence. Thus, there are limitations on the use of evidence of liability insurance, settlement offers, and plea negotiations. liability insurancesettlement offersplea negotiations liability insurancesettlement offersplea negotiations "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. "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.

6. Evidence must come through sworn witnesses testimony In systems of proof based on the English common law tradition, almost all evidence must be sponsored by a witness, who has sworn or solemnly affirmed to tell the truth. In systems of proof based on the English common law tradition, almost all evidence must be sponsored by a witness, who has sworn or solemnly affirmed to tell the truth.witness The bulk of the law of evidence regulates the types of witnesses is conducted during direct examination and cross-examination of witnesses. The bulk of the law of evidence regulates the types of witnesses is conducted during direct examination and cross-examination of witnesses.direct examinationcross-examinationdirect examinationcross-examination A lawyer will do a direct examination of his own witness and gets to cross examine witnesses presented by his/her adversary. A lawyer will do a direct examination of his own witness and gets to cross examine witnesses presented by his/her adversary. Other types of evidentiary rules specify the standards of persuasion (e.g., proof beyond a reasonable doubt) that a trier of fact such as a jury must apply when it assesses evidence. Other types of evidentiary rules specify the standards of persuasion (e.g., proof beyond a reasonable doubt) that a trier of fact such as a jury must apply when it assesses evidence. Today all persons are presumed to be qualified to serve as witnesses in trials and other legal proceedings, and all persons are also presumed to have a legal obligation to serve as witnesses if their testimony is sought. Today all persons are presumed to be qualified to serve as witnesses in trials and other legal proceedings, and all persons are also presumed to have a legal obligation to serve as witnesses if their testimony is sought. However, legal rules sometimes exempt people from the obligation to give evidence and legal rules disqualify people from serving as witnesses under some circumstances. However, legal rules sometimes exempt people from the obligation to give evidence and legal rules disqualify people from serving as witnesses under some circumstances.

7. Privilege rules give the holder of the privilege a right to prevent a witness from giving testimony. These privileges are ordinarily (but not always) designed to protect socially valued types of confidential communications. Privilege rules give the holder of the privilege a right to prevent a witness from giving testimony. These privileges are ordinarily (but not always) designed to protect socially valued types of confidential communications. Privilege Some of the privileges that are often recognized are the marital secrets privilege, the adverse spousal testimony privilege, the attorney-client privilege, the doctor-patient privilege, the psychotherapist-patient and counselor-patient privilege, the state secrets privilege and the clergy-penitent privilege. Some of the privileges that are often recognized are the marital secrets privilege, the adverse spousal testimony privilege, the attorney-client privilege, the doctor-patient privilege, the psychotherapist-patient and counselor-patient privilege, the state secrets privilege and the clergy-penitent privilege.marital secrets privilegeadverse spousal testimony privilege attorney-client privilegedoctor-patient privilege psychotherapist-patientcounselor-patient privilegestate secrets privilegeclergy-penitent privilegemarital secrets privilegeadverse spousal testimony privilege attorney-client privilegedoctor-patient privilege psychotherapist-patientcounselor-patient privilegestate secrets privilegeclergy-penitent privilege The only absolute one is solicitor client The only absolute one is solicitor client A variety of additional privileges are recognized in different jurisdictions, but the list of recognized privileges varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. A variety of additional privileges are recognized in different jurisdictions, but the list of recognized privileges varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Witness competence rules are legal rules that specify circumstances under which persons are ineligible to serve as witnesses. For example, neither a judge nor a juror is competent to testify in a trial in which they are serving in that capacity. Witness competence rules are legal rules that specify circumstances under which persons are ineligible to serve as witnesses. For example, neither a judge nor a juror is competent to testify in a trial in which they are serving in that capacity.competence Privilege and Competence

8. Hearsay Hearsay is one of the largest and most complex areas of the law of evidence in common-law jurisdictions. Hearsay is one of the largest and most complex areas of the law of evidence in common-law jurisdictions. Hearsay The default rule is that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The default rule is that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. A party is offering a statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted if the party is trying to prove that the assertion made by the declarant (the maker of the pretrial statement) is true. For example, prior to trial Bob says, "Jane went to the store." A party is offering a statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted if the party is trying to prove that the assertion made by the declarant (the maker of the pretrial statement) is true. For example, prior to trial Bob says, "Jane went to the store." If the party offering this statement as evidence at trial is trying to prove that Jane actually went to the store, the statement is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. AND IS THEREFORE INADMISSABLE AS HEARSAY If the party offering this statement as evidence at trial is trying to prove that Jane actually went to the store, the statement is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. AND IS THEREFORE INADMISSABLE AS HEARSAY However, there are dozens of exemptions from and exceptions to the hearsay rule. However, there are dozens of exemptions from and exceptions to the hearsay rule.

9. Hearsay continued Just some quick exceptions to the haersay rule: Just some quick exceptions to the haersay rule: An admission against interest (like confession) An admission against interest (like confession) A dying declaration A dying declaration Part of the “Res Gestae” –meaning part of the thing that is being litigated. Part of the “Res Gestae” –meaning part of the thing that is being litigated.

10. Circumstantial Evidence Evidence of an indirect nature which implies the existence of the main fact in question but does not in itself prove it. Evidence of an indirect nature which implies the existence of the main fact in question but does not in itself prove it.fact That is, the existence of the main fact is deduced from the indirect or circumstantial evidence by a process of probable reasoning. That is, the existence of the main fact is deduced from the indirect or circumstantial evidence by a process of probable reasoning.reasoning The introduction of a defendant's fingerprints or DNA sample are examples of circumstantial evidence. The introduction of a defendant's fingerprints or DNA sample are examples of circumstantial evidence.fingerprintsDNA samplefingerprintsDNA sample The fact that a defendant had a motive to commit a crime is circumstantial evidence. The fact that a defendant had a motive to commit a crime is circumstantial evidence.

11. Circumstantial evidence continued According the “RULE IN SHELLYS CASE” According the “RULE IN SHELLYS CASE” Although it is still possible to find guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a criminal case, based completely on circumstantial evidence, the trier of fact must take into account the fact that the evidence is circumstantial and not direct.