Why The Court Might Reject Evidence During An Auto Accident Trial
If you are pursuing an auto accident case, sieve your evidence careful so you only base your case on admissible evidence. Below are some forms of evidence that courts often find inadmissible.
The court will only allow relevant evidence during the trial. Relevant evidence proves or disapproves a specific fact. For example, if you are arguing about medical treatment costs, medical records become relevant because they contain costs of treatments. However, medical records are irrelevant evidence when arguing about the cost of car repairs.
Evidence is only admissible if it comes from a credible source – a source that you can easily believe to be telling the truth. For example, an eyewitness who was at the scene of an accident is a reliable source if they were not preoccupied at the time of the crash. However, a pedestrian who was browsing on their phone at the time of the crash is not reliable since they probably didn't see much. Thus, the testimony of the second witness might not be acceptable.
Prejudicial evidence arouses emotions without proving or disapproving any facts about the case. For example, many people have a soft spot for children, so the effects of an accident on kids can arouse strong emotions. A picture of an accident victim surrounded by their crying child, for example, can arouse strong emotions even if it doesn't add much to the trial. The court might deem such pictures prejudicial.
The best testimony is a first-hand account of an event. When testimony comes from a second or third person, it's likely tainted with confusion, memory lapses, and exaggerations, among other things. That is why courts don't allow testimony that comes from sources that were not at the scene; courts regard such testimony as hearsay.
Some evidence or testimony is protected by law. This is usually the case to protect the rights of different parties. For example, a married couple cannot be forced to testify against each other. Similarly, a lawyer is not expected and cannot be forced to testify about privileged information their client revealed. Thus, courts can strike out such evidence from their proceedings.
Lastly, the court can also prevent you from delivering evidence that wastes time. If you have already presented testimony or evidence that the court has accepted or the other side has not disputed (or disputed unsuccessfully), you don't need to produce more evidence or testimony to prove the same thing. Courts label such evidence as time-wasting tactics. Talk to your car accident lawyer to learn more.