Aspects Of
California evidence Law and its impact on people in today’s Sociaty
1.0 Indroduction
There are various
aspects of the California Evidence Law which impacts many individuals involved
in the court of law, as well as the wider society. It is common knowledge that
life cannot divorce itself from conflicts whether civil and criminal which is
handled in the courts of law. The California Evidence Law has various aspects
that influence how both the prosecutors and the defendants may argue their
cases in court, how they can present their evidence, the nature of proof that
is acceptable and that which is not accepted by the courts, among other key
issues that affect people involved in the court processes. This paper makes
effort to address the issues linked to California Evidence Law, and the impacts
they have on paper.
The law of
evidence in California has elements that are borrowed from the Federal Law of
Evidence and that are why there will be close reference of the two laws. The
aspects of the California Evidence law as reflected in this paper are such
important issues that not only the lawyers who practice law should be well acquainted
with, but also for the common man to be well versed with so as to interrelate
with the laws well in the event they have to be used in the court of law in
many capacities. People are used in courts as witnesses; as well as well they
may appear in court as defendants and thus the California evidence law
compounds as an important law, both for the people and the law practitioners.
This law has impacts the people much since they come into interaction with the
court processes in various ways, and may not have the formal schooling on
matters of law and on evidence laws in particular. Thus this paper is such an
important in outlining some of the critical aspects of the laws.
Getting to the root of the aspects of
the California evidence law is not an easy task since the laws are much
detailed, and thus requires a critical study so that to bring out the crucial
elements that are reflected by it. This is why this paper has taken an approach
of presenting the aspects in this law by reviewing the California Evidence law,
organizing what is represented in the law, and ensuring that it is presented in
a logical manner. This is to ensure that the paper is not only succinct in
addressing the various issues in the law, but well detailed in addressing the
key aspects in the evidence law that often affects people as they interact with
the law. As much as a number of the California evidence law is familiar with
us, this paper makes an attempt to review, and organize the aspects represented
in the law, so that it can be easily understood by the people, and thus give
people the confidence to apply the laws well in the event that they come to
interact with it. It is clear that a better understanding of the California
evidence law will enable the persons involved to apply the laws in a more
appropriate way, and thus have better outcomes with regard to justice by
representing facts and evidences in court as per the schedules provided for by
the law.
A number of aspects in the California
evidence law are not much emphasized in this paper because they are obvious
concepts in terms of their universality of application in many other evidence
laws, and secondly, some are only applied in a very limited contextual
framework. Obvious aspects in the California laws that may not need to be restated
are such as the rue of evidence that demands that all the evidence that is
constructed should be constructed in such a manned to achieve the ends of
justice to both parties in court. In addition, we have rules of evidence that
are limited in application such as those relating to how the plaintiff is cross
examined in cases such as sexual assault, or a case involving the incompetence
of a juror to impeach his own verdict on the case, or even in the case of cases
involving property valuation. Thus, this paper will concentrate in outlining
the aspects in the California Law courts which are used in every day law
practice and those that are not trivial. It has mastered in outlining the
aspects that have impacts on people, as well as those aspects that must be
known in the preparation of cases. Therefore the paper is explicit in
addressing the issues in California evidence laws that often brings challenges
in the arguing out of cases. California Evidence Code is short and thus this
paper will give an analytic framework into all these issues.
2.0 Aims and
Objectives
The aim of this paper is
To outline different aspects of the California Evidence Law. Laws are developed
to improve justice to both the defendants and the prosecutors; thus looking at
the California Evidence Law would be a big step in understanding this law from
the eyes of justice, and how justice can reach out to the people.
To look at the implications that the
California Evidence Law has on people. This is because the laws of evidence
touch the people directly than any other law. It is this law that determines
the extent of justice to people, and thus they should be able to understand the
aspects captured in the evidence law.
Aspects of
California Evidence Law
California Evidence law captures all the aspects relating to the construction
of evidence, presentation of evidence, and admissibility of the evidence in the
court of law. These are critical issues in the legal framework in California.
It may affect the success of a case presented in the court of law. California
laws just like other laws were established to ensure that there is justice for
both parties represented in court (the prosecution, and the defense council).
Thus it is of great importance for the laws to be understood by the people. In
addition, in the eyes of the law, justice is delivered to the people in court
through proper interpretation and validation of the evidences presented from
both parties. In this regard, California Evidence Laws is at the center of all
the processes directed to bring justice on board. Notably, it is people who
submit cases in court, and thus the California Evidence Law affects none other
than the people. This paper brings out the aspects in this law, an how it
impacts people in the best way possible. This is with regard to the simplicity
of the paper, and the diversity by which the aspects are presented to make it
an all round paper.
3.0 Rules on
Admissibility of Evidence
The California Evidence Law has outlined the structures by which any given
evidence may be admitted in court or rejected. Not all the evidence that is
presented in court will be admissible. This is because for the evidence to be
admitted in the eyes of the California Evidence Law, it must surpass several
tests. In the event that the evidence provided has not satisfactorily satisfied
the standard by which an evidence may be termed as ‘admissible’ then it stands
to not to be admissible, and thus may not be used within the constraints of
California laws.
According to the California Evidence
code 351, evidence presented in the court may only be admissible if it fully
meets three conditions. The three standards by which evidence would be found to
be admissible are materiality, relevance and competence. This means that any
evidence presented in the court of law and is proved to be material, relevant
and competent then such evidence cannot be barred by any exclusionary rule, and
this further implies that the evidence is admissible.
Relevance
Evidence is found to be relevant in the California law when it has the tendency
to create reason that makes the facts presented to prove or disapprove the
evidence to be either more of less probable. This is per California Evidence
Code 210. This means that the fact that if the evidence presented makes the
fact presented to support or counter it more or less probable, makes it
satisfactory as relevant. In addition, for the evidence provided to be
relevant, then the presented evident is not obliged to make the fact offered
certain, but should just demonist rate some tendency to increase of decrease
the likelihood of the fact that is presented. The finder of the fact presented
through the evidence has the liberty to weigh the evidence, though even if a
piece of evidence stands to be weak, it would still be found admissible but for
cases where it runs afoul of a given exclusionary rule of law or is deemed to
be otherwise incompetent.
Material
Evidence should satisfy the condition of being ‘material’. Evidence satisfies
to be termed as ‘material’ if the evidence offered proves a fact that has been
an issue of a given case. In this regard, a fact in a court case may have
support of proof by evidence. This type of evidence is satisfies the condition
of material; for it proves a fact presented in a case.
Competence
Competence in the California law happens in the case that the evidence has a
proof which meets a given set of traditional requirements of reliability. From
the conditions that have been set, any given evidence given is found by the
California Evidence Law to meet the three requirements is found to be much
admissible. Without regard to cases where any of the parties questions the
competence of the evidence through objection,, it would be deemed that the
objector is trying to show that there lacks competence of another preliquisite
admissibility standard. However, in practice the modern trend in law has shown
the tendency to turn the rules of competency by turning them in form of weighty
considerations.
Generally speaking, in the event that
competent evidence is offered to serve the purposes of proof to a given
relevant material fact, then this evidence remains admissible under the
California Evidence Law. This is regardless of whether the same evidence may be
perceived to be improper to be used for an otherwise purpose. This is per
schedule of evidence code 355. Notable, as much as the evidence of prior bad
acts subjected to the accused may be found not to be admissible, with regard to
serving the purposes regarding the intent in a federal court to impeach the
credibility of a witness serving in that case. In addition, in the event that
evidence code 1101(b) is applied regarding a situation where it has put it
clearly that evidence provided is meant to serve for a limited purpose, and the
one party thinks that jury may improperly apply the evidence, then the party
may request to a for a limiting instruction to be accompanied to the
instruction.
Regarding the conditions of
admissibility; in the event that value of the evidence is questionable
regarding faults in its purpose, as well as a high likelihood that it may serve
an improper purpose, by the party seeking to find a fact, the court has the
discretion not to admit the evidence. This is regardless of the fact that it
has fulfilled the prior conditions of admissibility. In this case the evidence
would be thrown out for the probable value of the evidence would be said to
outweigh its prejudicial (improper harm) effect. In this case, it is not that
necessary that an evidence that is extremely harmful to one party qualifies to
be prejudicial. In simple terms, courts have the discretion to prevent
confusion, waste of time, and delay of cumulative evidence.
4.0 Accrediting
and Discrediting a Witness
In the California Evidence Law, a witness may fail the test of being accredited
if he has not been impeached. The law provides that any party has the liberty
to impeach any witness at any provided time. In addition, the credibility of a
witness could be impeached at international level but for the point he has been
impeached by a court inquiry in any of the following relevant areas. Among the
about nine of the areas, the first four areas relates with the fulfillment of
the requirements of competence.
They include:
The sincerity, as well as firmness of the belief of the witness regarding the
external consequences of violation of oath.
The nature and quality of the perception of the said witness or the ability by
which the witness may be able to perceive.
The ability by which the witness may remember all that is provided as evidence.
Finally, we have the accuracy of the perception of witness communication.
A much as the cross-examiner may not have any basis for believing the existence
of any infirmity in the witness testimony; the cross examiner may inquire into
the four areas.
5.0 Issues in
Presenting Evidence
Today, there have been an augmented number of issues with regard to
presentation of evidence that have frequently caused problems in the
courtrooms. Several of these issues relates to the presentation of evidence
that affects the credibility, as well as the outcomes of the cases. In the
California courts, just like other courts; it is not just the ‘evidence’ but
also the presentation of evidence that affects the outcomes of the cases, and
thus give justice to the people who deserve it.
a. Issues
regarding the form of Examination
There are issues that have influence on how a given direct communication can be
permitted or be found to lead to admissible outcomes. In regard to the law,
direct examination relates to the questioning process by which a lawyer calling
the witness to testify on the matters that he is making efforts to inquire on.
According to the California Evidence code 760, this may relate much with the
use of leading questions. In this case, a question may be referred to as
leading if it a question that substitutes the lawyers words for those of the
eyewitness or in the case where the question suggests a specific direction or
response. For instance, “You told the court that you were at your estate
parking at 7 pm that day, didn’t you?”
The imperative thing to reminder with regard to the form of examination and the
implied implication of a response according to California Evidence Law is that
all the questions that demands for a “No” or “yes” response may not necessarily
be termed as leading questions. This is why under the California Evidence Law,
the court allows the person conducting the examination to engage in questions
such as, “Did you inform the defendants that you wanted the detergent
supplies?” The things that should be noted according to this law is that a
response can be found to be leading in the event that it develops a pattern
that reduces the witness opinion to a state where the witness adopts the
lawyer’s description.
b. The Hearsay
Rule
This is one of the regulations under the California Evidence Law that is often
simply stated though confusing to apply. Perhaps this is because the law is
riddled with exceptions. In addition, this is among the rules that many people
are versed with yet confusing at times to abide by. Hearsay evidence refers to
the kind of evidence of a statement that was fronted by any other person other
than a witness. This statement often is said by the person while testifying and
often is offered to add the weight of proof of the matter at hand in that case.
In analyzing the possible hearsay, the first step may involve the determination
that the statement said is indeed hearsay. In this regard, if that statement
mentioned is hearsay, then it demands that an inquiry be conducted to determine
whether the hearsay statement in any way may fall within the structures of the
hearsay exceptions rule.
Notably, evidence may fall into this
category for various reasons. First, because the given evidence is often an out
of court statement intended to prove something besides the truthfulness of the
hearsay it qualifies. Secondly, if the said statements prove to have a possible
use as hearsay or rather for a non-hearsay purpose then it stands to be
admitted in court. These two exceptions makes such kind of evidence to be
admissible subject to a requested limiting instruction. In addition, it is also
subject to the discretion of the courts judges depending on whether it
satisfies or tests negative to the condition of “its prejudicial effect
outweighing the probative value”. This makes statements such as the following
not to be hearsay in court. They include; “Help”, “I accept the offer”, “In my
opinion” and so on.
c. The Lay Opinion
Rule
The law demands that witnesses should respond to cross examination as per what
they heard, felt, saw, tasted or smelled. They are required not to express
their objective opinion or subjectively draw conclusions on their own. This
condition shows that often the distinction between fact and opinion may not be
found to be clear as expected. To add to this, an increased number of witnesses
have found it not an easy task to give their evidence in the form that is
required by law. This is because a given number of perceptions may not be easy
to communicate by the use of language that is divorced to a given opinion and
judgment. This is why both the Federal and California Evidence Laws have to a
significant measure relaxed this standard against lay opinions. This is in
their bid to ensure good facilitation of evidence reception. This is evident by
the provision for witnesses who are not legal experts. This is because the lay people
are allowed to testify in form of opinion subject to the rationality of the
perception of the individual giving proof, as well as if it’s helpful to his
own understanding of his testimony. To note is the fact that opinions by a
competent lay person in court are permitted by cases, rule or stature.
6.0 Kinds of
Evidence Admissible in California Evidence Law
Just like many other laws of international and national scope, courts would
determine the categorization of evidences depending on the rationale offered by
law. In regard to the California laws, the traditional types of evidence have
been maintained they include demonstrative, documentary, real, and testimonial
evidences. Important to note is that a number o rules of evidence are
applicable with regard to the four kinds of evidence, while some apply to
selected cases.
Real Evidence
This refers to evidence regarding something that is in existence, or a thing
whose characteristics are material and relevant. Often it involves a thing that
was significantly involved in a given event presented in the court case. In
addition, a written contract, where sets of actions were based may be found to
be real evidence by the virtue that the evidence has been presented to prove
the terms that was executed by the defendant. If the written contract was
drafted in an unsteadily and faltering manner, then it may be found as a relevant
to show that the person committed to the contract was likely to be under duress
at the time of closing the deal. Real evidence may include murder weapons,
scene of accident, crumpled automobile.
The imperative thing to reminder is
that for real evidence to be admitted, it must test positive to the teats of
relevance, competence, and material. Often to do this requires laying the
foundation. This is involves the establishment that the three basic
preliquisites apply in that case. It is clear that materiality and relevance
condition of real evidence are often obvious; however, the competence of the
evidence must be proved by exposing out that the evidence is really what it was
meant to be. This is through the process of authentication where the evidence
is assessed to find that it is what it purports to be.
It must also be
renowned that the verification of real evidence may be conducted in three ways.
They include the identification of an object made unique, identification of a
unique object, as well as by setting up a chain of custody in the case. These
are the only ways by which the an alternate ways by which any real evidence may
be authenticated in the event a court has failed to get satisfied by the method
that has been employed.
In addition to the said, it has been found that the least troublesome method of
authenticating real evidence is through the provision of a testimony given by a
witness with the ability to identify the unique object that has been presented
in court. Eve as efforts are made to identify the unique object in the case, it
is however of great importance to note that an increasing number of mundane
objects agree to this form of identification. In this sense, a unique contract
developed by two or more parties, may be authenticated by a person with that
given document. The second method which regards identification of an object
made unique in court has also been found to be useful. This is because it gives
lawyers or clients an opportunity to avoid the temptation of proving a chain of
custody.
To sum this up, to bring justice closer
to both parties in court, the law has provided room for the proponents of the
evidence in court to establish the object subject to not being changed between
the trials and events. This means that from the day of event in question
through the days cannot be accounted for, then the evidence qualifies to be
excluded.
Demonstrative
Evidence
As the name does suggest, this is the sort of evidence that would demonstrates
the testimony given by a specific witness. This kind of evidence is only found
to be admissible under California Evidence Law when its not unobjectable, has
sufficient accuracy for the tasks that are not yet done. A typical example of
this kind of evidence may include the maps and animations that may demonstrate
the scene of the occurrence. The purpose of demonstrative evidence is to get a
clear illustration of the testimony being given. Authentication of this kind of
evidence is done by the witness whose testimony has been captured in the
illustration. This is because a witness is often given the opportunity to
identify the salient features of the provided exhibit in court, and establish
that it fairly reflects what was seen or heard in the said event.
History has revealed that for quite
some time, California courts have held the use of photographs as only
demonstrative evidence to be controversial. This is because it would be
difficult to establish a witness who would say that the camera saw. However,
many courts in California conclusively reached to a sensible solution and that
is a photograph may qualify to be used either as a demonstrative or real
evidence. This is depended on the form of authentication that was employed. For
instance, a photograph may be found in court to be demonstrative by the virtue
that it was authenticated by a witness who saw what exactly happened in the
event.
Documentary
Evidence
This kind of evidence is a kind of real evidence as it may include the cases
such as evidence such a defendant offers a copy of a contract to verify the
stipulations of the said agreement. In this event the contract may be found to
be documentary evidence according to California Evidence Law. This is because
the contract was issued in document form and thus is authenticated just as
other real evidence. This is through the witness who has identified the
evidence or a witness who is successful in establishing a chain of custody for
the information captured in the evidence. However, because many contracts often
involves human language, as well as the development of common law; this kind of
evidence often is accompanied by problems especially regarding cases where they
contain hearsay. In addition, we have the patrol evidence rule of the
California law that bars the admission of extrinsic evidence, which has the
tendency to change the terms of a written agreement presented in court.
As noted before, the documents
presented in court as evidence may be authenticated in a similar way as the
case is in other real evidence provided. In addition to this, the law requires
that any material alterations must be accounted for with regard to the
objective of the alterations and the consequent impact of that alteration. It
is noted that within the structures of California Evidence Law, there are
specific methods that have been approved for authenticating the document that
have been listed in court. This includes the submission with regard to the
finder of fact in the court case proceedings. Authentication of some documents
may include the authentication of signatures on the document provided for the
purposes of being used as evidence. There are many documents that may be used
in court as documentary evidence. They include the inscriptions, newspapers,
periodicals, public records, as well as other acknowledged documents.
It is further held by the best evidence
rule that in the event that evidence is offered in form of writing; the
secondary evidence provided to stand in place of the original document t may
not be admissible but for an adequate explanation being offered accounting the
absence of the original document. In the California Evidence law, testimony and
other forms of secondary evidence that stands in place of the original content
is on a general scale forbidden.
It has been generally accepted by both
the California and the Federal laws that the use of ‘photocopy’ material may be
subjected to error or fraud. In addition, the law encourages the use of
mechanically produced duplicates but for a party which has raised a core issue,
such as questioning the accuracy of the copy.
Testimonial
Evidence
This is the most basic kind of evidence that exist s and the one that doesn’t
necessarily require another form of evidence as a condition for it to be
admitted in law courts. This is the evidence that is made up of what is said
during court proceedings by a competent witness. A witness is found to be
competent by the law if he satisfies four demands. The first one is that he
must take an oath or its substitute with understanding. The second condition
involves personal knowledge on the subject of the said testimony. This may be
said in another language to mean he must have perceived a thing with a rational
sense which should be relevant to the said case. The third requirement that
makes a witness competent is being able to remember what he perceived. The last
and final condition for the competency of the witness relates to his
communication ability. He should have the ability to communicate with what he
is expected to have perceived.
However, there exist other rules of
competence that are linked directly to exceptional cases or circumstances. For
instance the rule that a jury is incompetent to go ahead and impeach his own
verdict, this is alongside the rule that an acting jury doesn’t satisfy the
competency tests regarding testifying in trial where he is at the same time
testifying.
It is also imperative to reminder that
the California Evidence law has provided that in the event that the witness has
forgotten what he is to testify about; there are four ways by which this memory
can be supplemented. The first option is to seek a recess where the witness
will have a break and thus calm the nerves. The other option involves asking
the witness a leading question that would refresh his recollection of memory.
At this point, it is clear that this is one of the exceptions on the earlier
discussed rule against the use of leading questions while undertaking direct
examination. The third and final option for a witness who has failed to gather
memory that would support him to testify is referred to as “past recollection
refreshed”. It involves refreshing the memory of the witness by requesting the
witness to acknowledge that he can’t remember the fact that they are trying to
inquire on. After this, he is asked anything that may help him recollect the
memory; it may be a movie, events video tape, perfume smell and so on.
It should be noted that the California
law demands that if the evidence used to refresh the memory of a witness is
written, a copy of it should be provided to the opposing counsel. In
California, failure to meet this demand will result in the testimony not being
admitted. It must also be renowned that the reminiscence of refreshing doesn’t
qualify in any way to act as evidence by any party. It is the response of the
witness after his memory has been brought back that is treated as evidence.
7.0 Conclusion
All in all, California Evidence Law has various aspects that affect people in
different ways. This is in their capacities as witnesses, lawyers, as well
those who serve in other capacities at the court room. The California Evidence
law has enclosed many of these issues said that affects the behaviors of the
witnesses, lawyers and the power that a jury has been given to handle
exceptional situations during the examination, as well as at other stages of
court proceedings. The paper has brought out the core issues regarding
California Evidence Law that affects the way witnesses, as well as the lawyers
conduct their business during court proceedings.
