In order to convict a defendant of a crime, a prosecutor must present enough evidence to prove all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. A prosecutor can’t simply present anything they want to the jury, however, as there are rules that govern what types of evidence are admissible and what types are not. In order to keep evidence out, a defense attorney must be able to skillfully object to its admission in court, whether in a pretrial motion or in court during trial. Knowing when and how to object to inadmissible evidence is critical to successfully defending against criminal charges, and anyone facing allegations should ensure their attorney has extensive experience with this aspect of a criminal trial.
Objecting isn’t always something that comes naturally. Instead, an attorney often learns how to effectively object to evidence with experience. Both federal and state prosecutors will certainly try to get anything into evidence possible – even if it shouldn’t be admissible. It is imperative that your attorney knows how to keep evidence out when necessary to make sure you aren’t wrongfully convicted based on unreliable evidence.
When Is Evidence Admissible?
The rules of evidence are complicated. In short, in order for evidence to be admitted, it must be:
- Relevant
- Material
- Competent
Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is material to the determination of the proceeding more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. In other words, does the evidence tend to prove or disprove a fact? Material evidence means evidence that is necessary to determine the outcome of a disputed issue (for example, the guilt or innocence of a defendant). Competent evidence means evidence that has a sufficient level of reliability. Introducing evidence that is not relevant, material or competent into the case at hand will confuse the jury and can sway their opinions based on information that has nothing to do with the alleged crime.
Prosecutors can’t simply portray evidence as fact when it hasn’t been properly authenticated as competent and reliable. For example, if police found a bag of white powder in a car, the prosecutor can’t just admit the bag into evidence and claim it’s cocaine or a similar drug. They also can’t simply say that a lab determined that the bag contained drugs. Instead, they must first establish that the bag that was tested was, in fact, the same one found in the car. This is known as proving the “chain of custody.” This is usually accomplished by having the police officer testified that he found the bag of powder, labeled it as evidence and delivered it to the lab for testing. Furthermore, a prosecutor must prove the powder is an illegal drug. They could accomplish this by having a lab technician testify to the methods used to test the powder and the results of that testing (i.e. that the powder is in fact cocaine). The rules of evidence are designed to make sure that only relevant, material, and competent evidence are introduced at a trial in order to protect a defendant’s rights.
Another important evidence issue is that of hearsay. Witnesses are generally allowed to testify to things they saw or perceived directly. Witnesses testify under oath and a defense attorney has the ability to cross-examine them to challenge the accuracy of their observations and memory and to determine if the witness has any biases. Hearsay is a statement, made outside of court, by someone who is not in court to testify regarding that statement. So, when a witness tries to testify to something they heard from someone else, evidentiary issues arise. Generally, statements made outside of court are not admissible in court. However, there are exceptions to this rule. The exceptions exist because certain statements people make are presumed to be reliable. For instance, a person’s statement to his or her doctor for the purposes of medical treatment would be admissible because it is presumed a person has an incentive, to be honest with his or her doctor in order to get the best possible treatment.
Your 4th Amendment rights also come into play when it comes to criminal evidence. You have the right against unreasonable search and seizure, which means police need to obtain a warrant or prove certain exigent circumstances before they can search you, your car, or your home and take evidence. If evidence was gathered in violation of your rights, the right defense attorney can fight to have that evidence kept out of your case.
The Experience Necessary for a Proper Defense
The above are only some of many issues that can arise regarding the admissibility of evidence in a criminal case. Recognizing when evidence is inadmissible and promptly objecting with an accurate basis for the objection is something that comes with trial experience. It’s essential that anyone who is facing criminal charges is represented by an attorney who knows how to keep inadmissible evidence out of court to avoid a wrongful conviction.
