Obstacles to Admitting Evidence in Los Angeles Courts

Obstacles to Admitting Evidence in Los Angeles Courts

Getting evidence admitted in a Los Angeles courtroom can be tricky. There are lots of rules lawyers have to follow, and judges can reject evidence for all kinds of reasons. This article will walk through some common obstacles to admitting evidence in LA courts.

Relevance

For evidence to be admissible, it has to be relevant to the case¹. So if you try to introduce something that doesn’t have anything to do with the issues the jury has to decide, the judge will keep it out. Relevance isn’t always obvious though. Sometimes you have to connect the dots for the judge and explain how the evidence relates to the case.

Hearsay

One of the biggest hurdles is the rule against hearsay. Hearsay is when a witness testifies about something someone else said outside of court². It’s usually not admissible because the jury can’t judge the credibility of an out-of-court statement. There are lots of exceptions though, so hearsay doesn’t automatically get excluded. You have to look at the specific facts.

Authentication

Before physical evidence and documents can be admitted, they have to be authenticated. That just means the party introducing it has to show proof it’s what they say it is³. For example, if you want to introduce a contract, you’d need a witness to testify they saw the defendant sign it. There are lots of ways to authenticate evidence though – it doesn’t have to be an eyewitness.

Best Evidence Rule

Under the best evidence rule, you can’t introduce secondary evidence of a document’s contents if the original is available⁴. For example, you couldn’t submit a copy of a contract if you have the original. There are exceptions though. The point is to prevent fraud – courts want to see the original when possible.

Unfair Prejudice

Even if evidence is relevant, it can still be excluded if the judge decides it would unfairly prejudice the jury. For example, gruesome crime scene photos could make the jury biased against the defendant. Judges have a lot of discretion here though – it’s a judgment call.

Privileges

There are rules that protect certain relationships, like attorney-client privilege and doctor-patient confidentiality. Those privileges mean certain evidence can’t be admitted without the person’s consent. Privileges vary though, so you have to look at the specific relationship.

Search and Seizure

Evidence obtained illegally through an improper search or seizure can be excluded under the 4th Amendment. If the police search someone without a warrant for example, any evidence found may not come in. There are exceptions like exigent circumstances though.

Miranda Rights

Statements made by a defendant during a police interrogation can be kept out if they didn’t receive a Miranda warning first. But Miranda only applies when someone is in custody – it doesn’t cover voluntary statements made outside of custody.

Character Evidence

Evidence about someone’s character, like their honesty or peacefulness, is generally not admissible⁵. There are exceptions, like where character is directly at issue. But in general, courts don’t want juries deciding cases based on character.

Subsequent Remedial Measures

Evidence of steps taken after an accident to improve safety, like fixing a stairway, are generally excluded in negligence cases⁶. The idea is we don’t want to deter people from fixing hazards. There are exceptions though.

Offers to Compromise

Offers to settle or compromise a dispute are usually inadmissible to prove liability⁷. Otherwise, people would be discouraged from trying to settle cases out of court. But a settlement offer can come in for other reasons, like showing bias.

Expert Testimony

Expert witnesses have to be qualified, use reliable methods, and testify on matters requiring specialized knowledge⁸. Their methods and qualifications can be challenged. If the expert isn’t legit, their testimony will be excluded.

Scientific Evidence

Before scientific evidence like DNA can be admitted, the court has to hold a hearing on its reliability under the Daubert standard⁹. Even widely accepted methods can be challenged and excluded under Daubert.

Prior Convictions

Evidence that a defendant was previously convicted of a crime is often inadmissible because it’s overly prejudicial. But sometimes prior convictions can come in, like to impeach the defendant if they testify. It depends on the facts.

Subsequent Remedial Measures

Evidence of steps taken after an accident to improve safety, like fixing a stairway, are generally excluded in negligence cases¹⁰. The idea is we don’t want to deter people from fixing hazards. There are exceptions though.

Limited Purpose

Sometimes evidence is only admissible for a limited purpose, like showing motive but not guilt. The jury has to be instructed on the limitation. If the jury might improperly use the evidence, it can still be excluded.

These are just some of the common obstacles lawyers face when trying to get evidence admitted in Los Angeles courts. The rules of evidence are complicated with lots of exceptions. Successful attorneys understand the intricacies and are able to tailor their arguments to overcome these hurdles.

References

1. California Evidence Code Section 350

2. California Evidence Code Section 1200

3. California Evidence Code Section 1400

4. California Evidence Code Section 1520

5. California Evidence Code Section 1100

6. California Evidence Code Section 1151

7. California Evidence Code Section 1152

8. California Evidence Code Section 720

9. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) 509 U.S. 579

10. California Evidence Code Section 1151