Admissible evidence: Difference between revisions

{{Evidence law}}

For evidence to be admissible, it must tend to prove or disprove some fact that is at issue in the proceeding.<ref name="Hill">{{cite book |last1=Hill |first1=Gerald N. |last2=Hill |first2=Kathleen |title=The people's law dictionary : taking the mystery out of legal language |date=2002 |publisher=MJF Books |location=New York, NY |isbn=9781567315530}}</ref> However, if the utility of this evidence is outweighed by its tendency to cause the factfinderfact finder to disapprove of the party it is introduced against for some unrelated reason, it willis not be admissible. Furthermore, certain public-policy considerations bar the admission of otherwise relevant evidence.

For evidence to be admissible enough to be admitted, the party proffering the evidence must be able to show that the source of the evidence makes it so. If the evidence is in the form of [[witness]] testimony, the party introducingthat introduces the evidence must [[Lay a foundation|lay the groundwork]] for the witness's credibility of the witness, and his knowledge of the things to which he attests. [[Hearsay]] is generally barred for its lack of reliability. If the evidence is documentary, the party proffering the evidence must be able to show that it is authentic, and must be able to demonstrate the [[chain of custody]] from the original author to the present holder. The trial judge performs a "gatekeeping" role in excluding unreliable testimony. The United States Supreme Court first addressed the reliability requirement for experts in the landmark case ''[[Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.]]''.<ref name="Daubert">''[[Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.]]'' 509 U.S. 579 (1993). </ref> The Court laid out four non-exclusive factors that trial courts may consider when evaluating scientific expert reliability: (1) whether [[scientific evidence]] has been tested and the methodology with which it has been tested; (2) whether the evidence has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) whether a potential rate of error is known; and (4) whether the evidence is generally accepted in the scientific community.<ref ''Id.'' at 592-94. name="Daubert"/> ''[[Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael]]'' later extended the ''Daubert'' analysis to include all expert testimony.<ref>''[[Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael]]'', 526 U.S. 137 (1999).</ref> It bears an effect on the verdict of the court.