Rules of Evidence Law

Contributor

By J. Hohler III
eHow Contributing Writer

As with anything in this country court cases are governed by a complex set of rules, including rules of evidence. In spite of the complexity, and the sometimes-heated debates that the rules of evidence can cause, they are a necessary component to the smooth operation to the judicial system.

History

The federal rules of evidence were established in 1975. By codifying these rules congress sought to unify and normalize the rules used by the federal court system and to apply one cohesive set of rules to all areas of law, from criminal to family to personal injury cases. Although congress passed the rules it was the U.S. Supreme Court that was given the power to review and propose modifications and to implement those modifications, subject to some congressional oversight.

State Rules

State rules of evidence are modeled closely on the federal rules but do not necessarily mirror them, and, given the diversity of the country, it is possible for any single rule to vary greatly from state to state.

Relevant Evidence

Rule 401 deals with the question of relevance and is probably the most important of the rules. Relevance evidence is defined as anything having the tendency to prove or disprove a fact of consequence to the case at hand. Although this is a broad definition and doesn't seem as if it would be overly exclusionary, the fact that it acts as a gatekeeper for all evidence at trial makes it the most important.

Character Evidence

Character evidence serves an important function, specifically to impeach the credibility of witnesses. However, given the extremely prejudicial effect such evidence may have, the rules carefully define what may be admitted at trial. In criminal cases the rules of character evidence are fairly restrictive, especially regarding the defendant's character, so as to limit the inclination of the jury to convict the defendant simply because he is a bad guy.

Hearsay

Hearsay is the most hotly contested of the rules, which would explain why it has one general rule and nearly 30 exceptions or explanations. Hearsay is defined as a statement made out of court by somebody other than he who is testifying to the statement in court, and the rules exclude such statements because, as the one who made the statement is not testifying to the statements, the truth or honesty of the maker of the statement cannot be evaluated. However, some hearsay statements are allowed, especially when they are made in situations where no person would be expected to lie, such as statements made against one's own interest or those made under belief of impending death. As these statements are more likely to be truthful; they are potentially admissible.