2
   

Admissable or not

 
 
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?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,198 • Replies: 5
No top replies

 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Aug, 2005 01:07 pm
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?
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Aug, 2005 01:16 pm
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?
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Aug, 2005 04:36 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Aug, 2005 04:51 pm
speaking from experience , how true is fishin.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Aug, 2005 06:23 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Admissable or not
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 04:10:51