The Various Kinds of Evidence Used In Court

The Physical Evidence

The meaning of physical evidence and examples are any tangible object that may be relevant in a court proceeding. A bloodied and shattered whiskey bottle in a bar might support a theory that a bar fight started when one person was struck on the head with the bottle. It might eliminate the possibility that a bottle was thrown. If there were no such bottle, the person’s head could not have been so injured. The person then might explain that the injured person simply fell on the broken bottle. The explanation might be one possible version of the facts that occurred and is plausible. But it is no more than an explanation and the jury can choose to reject it.
Another example of physical evidence would be fingerprints found at the scene of a robbery. These usually are smudged, and a lot of luck has to go into the results. However, if they can be matched to that of a known person, there is a strong possibility that the person was at the crime scene. It is possible that the person’s fingerprints were planted. Thus , courts admit fingerprints into evidence but allow people to testify on cross-examination that there is a chance that fingerprints may be planted. A question from the jury might be how feasible is it that the fingerprints were planted. Their conclusion would be that fingerprints are just one type of physical evidence.
DNA is thought not to be fallible. This is because the DNA of all humans except identical twins is unique to the particular person. Careful lab work can show the connection between the DNA and a suspect. It is likely to be narrowly tailored to the particular person. So DNA is a very reliable physical evidence and gives strong confirmation of a person’s presence at the scene of a crime. But the same rule about fingerprints applies to DNA. Careful cross-examination of the forensic witness about planting of DNA can show that there is a small possibility that the DNA could be planted. Physical evidence is very important but fortunately, not infallible.

The Documentary Evidence

The most common type of evidence that is presented in a court case is documentary evidence. This type of evidence may take the form of a contract, an email or something else that is tangible rather than oral or testimonial in nature. Documentary evidence is important because it may serve as a means of verifying claims of fact made in a case.
When documentary evidence is presented, the presenting attorneys may choose to introduce it on a block basis. This means that all of the documents are introduced at one time as a single piece of evidence. The witness does not testify about the specific content of each piece of documentary evidence on a piece-by-piece basis. Generally, if the documents are admitted individually, the witness will often go over each one with information about its contents. It is often more effective to proceed on a block basis and the court often prefers to have the data in a single exhibit. When this is done, the documents are usually marked in sequential order and then entered into evidence all at once.
Documentary evidence is preferred over testimonials in many cases, particularly when the facts being asserted are controversial or are capable of being disputed. Perhaps the chief advantage of testimonial evidence is that it is offered live. It can be readily observed, evaluated and challenged. In some cases, photographs, film or videotape may be preferred over live testimony.
The contents of documents may be introduced into evidence in two ways. The first way is referred to as the "best evidence" rule. This rule requires that documents themselves be introduced into evidence to prove their content and to make their content available to the trier of fact. The second method is known as the "parol evidence" rule. This rule states that when a document is offered, the party who is relying on evidence to prove truth of the statements that are contained in the document need not introduce the document itself.

The Testimonial Evidence — Witnesses

Testimonial evidence refers specifically to the use of witness statements and testimonies in court. Whereas real evidence must be a witness or suspect seeing an event or taking part in the event himself or herself, testimonial evidence can come from anyone with knowledge of the event or circumstances in question, no matter how second-hand.
However, for testimonial evidence to be found admissible, certain criteria must be met. The first of these requirements is competency. In general, witnesses must be found competent to testify in any given case if they are expected to provide meaningful testimony. Competency is judged by a number of factors that may include the ability to understand the obligation of the witness to present truthful evidence, the capacity to observe and recall the occurrence in question, and the ability to express that knowledge in a clear and meaningful way. These factors are defined based on evidence provided from the testimony of other witnesses, rather than from the knowledge of the judge.
For testimonial evidence to be found admissible, certain criteria must be met. The first of these requirements is competency.
Another important factor in determining testimonial evidence is credibility. In addition to being competent, a witness whose testimony is found credible usually has had the opportunity to observe the event in question at hand, such as the hearing of testimony to corroborate or dispute the statements provided by a witness of interest. Competency and credibility are determined either through direct testimony or the cross-examination of the witness’s statements or depositions. While improper testimony should be found inadmissible in any court, improperly obtained information should be found inadmissible in all cases.

The Digital Evidence

Digital evidence has become increasingly integral to modern litigation, as almost every facet of our lives are now connected in some form or fashion to the digital world. Courts are inundated with evidence, from e-mail and other electronic communications to social media websites to data from smartphones, tablets, and other devices in an effort to prove or disprove claims on both sides of legal matters. For instance, in Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership v. Whitetail15, the court allowed a utility company to introduce photographs and videos taken at a party to prove that its employees had not been exposed to hydrogen sulfide gas. Enbridge sought to organize and streamline the massive collection of photographs and videos seized from the cellphones and phones of four witnesses by producing video compilations depicting those present at the party. However, one employee’s cellphone was never found and soon thereafter, he posted a video of himself and others having fun, laughing, and dancing on social media while "depicting the physical activity of the arm, head, and shoulder of the person holding the cellphone." The court found this to have occurred "lifetimes after" exposure to the gas and ruled this to be admissible , circumstantially supporting the company’s assertion that the workers "were neither exposed to nor affected by that gas."
However, the issue of admissibility can be much murkier. In Boucher v. Shaw, the plaintiff sought to preclude the presentation of his Facebook account information and postings from discovery as irrelevant. 251 F.R.D. 373, 376 (N.D.N.Y. 2008). The District Court acknowledged the production of an individual’s private Facebook data as potentially relevant to the issue of credibility. However, the court noted that while such disclosures may be relevant, they could also implicate privacy interests. 251 F.R.D. 373, 379 (N.D.N.Y. 2008). In this case, the court allowed discovery of Facebook postings only if they "contain within them information which contradicts some aspect of [the plaintiff’s] position, or, alternatively, make statements which are relevant to calls for documents made on his own social media site." Id.
Why is this important? Understanding various pieces of evidence and the intrinsic value of digital information is imperative in the modern courtroom. The prosecution and defense must understand how to advocate for and against Digital Evidence and how juries may or may not understand and appreciate this digital evidence.

The Circumstantial Evidence

Thirdly there is what we call circumstantial evidence. This type of evidence is not directly observed but instead points to a conclusion or draws an inference. The example usually given in law school to illustrate this is the image of a burglar who has left a window open following a break-in into a residence and then walks out the front door and heads off down the street with a large flat screen TV under his arm. If you see the thief with the TV in hand, it is pretty obvious that he came into the house by the window, right? In this scenario, we have direct evidence of the burglar entering through the window when it was open but before the burglar had a chance to close it again. The open window is not direct evidence of a break-in. Instead, we would say that it is a factor lending credence to the conclusion that the burglar entered through the front door since he did not close the window behind him. No one would argue that these two pieces of evidence are the same.
Just because we cannot verify a story by direct observation doesn’t mean that it is not accurate, though. Many of our beliefs and behaviors are based on circumstantial evidence. The jury instructions are very helpful to help the jury understand how they should evaluate the evidence presented at trial. It tells them that a "fact may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence, or both and that the evidence that both direct and circumstantial evidence is acceptable for both civil and criminal cases alike. The importance of the evidence is not in whether or not it is direct or circumstantial, but rather how persuasive each piece is. Ultimately, the fact finder will weigh and consider all the evidence presented both direct and circumstantial in reaching their verdict."

What You Need To Know About Hearsay

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement that is being offered as evidence of the truth of the matter asserted in that statement. Hearsay evidence is generally excluded from court proceedings under the theory that the adverse party would be prejudiced by receiving evidence that the adverse party may not have had the opportunity to explore through cross-examination. Although hearsay is virtually always objectionable, there are exceptions to this general rule and there are many categories of admissible statements that fall under those exception rules .
The most common examples of admissible hearsay include:
• Admissions of a party-opponent
• A present sense impression
• An excited utterance
• A statement made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment
• A recorded recollection
• A contemporaneous statement of physical condition
• A business record
• A public record
• A police officer’s record of a drunken driving arrest
• A prior inconsistent or consistent statement of a witness
• A statement of past or existing state of mind