Reply
Mon 29 Aug, 2005 01:02 pm
i'm not an attorney, and I did try to read the calif. evidence code to determine whether certain evidence would be admissable or not, but I found it to be an arduous task at best to determine whether a particular e-mail that was not related to an assault case is admissable or not.
the e-mail, written by the defendant, to the victim, states that the defendant is pissed off, and then says to the victim to please explain themself. it's not threatening, so is it admissable or not?
Re: Admissable or not
highrpms wrote:i'm not an attorney, and I did try to read the calif. evidence code to determine whether certain evidence would be admissable or not, but I found it to be an arduous task at best to determine whether a particular e-mail that was not related to an assault case is admissable or not.
the e-mail, written by the defendant, to the victim, states that the defendant is pissed off, and then says to the victim to please explain themself. it's not threatening, so is it admissable or not?
Maybe. Under what circumstances did you obtain this e-mail and for what purpose do you intend to introduce it?
If the email was not threatening, there isn't any evidence, IMO. Just being mad doesn't make for a crime. A threat would constitute assult with intent to harm. Why would you want to use this email any way? What good will it do?
Bella Dea wrote:If the email was not threatening, there isn't any evidence, IMO. Just being mad doesn't make for a crime.
It might not be a crime but the email may refute claims made by the defendant. If, for example, the defendant claimed in court that they were never upset with anything the victim had ever done the e-mail would be evidence they they had been.
It could be useful as one of several pieces of evidence to destroy the defendant's credibility.
speaking from experience , how true is fishin.
In most common law-influenced jurisdictions the first test of admissibility is relevance. If it's relevant it MAY be admissible. However it has a long way to go before being admitted.
Some jurisdictions will conduct sessions in the absence of the jury to argue for the admissibility or inadmissibility of particular pieces of evidence.
Some jurisdictions allow the court to apply certain guidelines in order to decide whether or not to admit evidence.
The short answer is you don't know until you try.
I am not a lawyer.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace