How evidence is presented

Evidence is almost always presented through witnesses. In fact, witnesses are so important that they can be compelled to attend the trial. A “subpoena” is a court order commanding a witness to appear in court and give testimony. Witnesses may tell about events they saw or heard, give expert opinions, or testily about other matters. Even tangible evidence, such as a murder weapon or a document, must normally be introduced through the testimony of witnesses. Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Contrary to popular opinion, circumstantial evidence is often reliable evidence. Even criminal convictions can be based on circumstantial evidence. The jury can use the circumstantial evidence and other evidence to determine the facts.

The parties are not free to present any evidence, in any way they please, but must abide by the rules of evidence. The main purpose of the rules of evidence is to prevent a jury from being influenced by unreliable evidence. The rules of evidence require that evidence must be competent and relevant to the case being tried.

There are certain kinds of evidence which cannot be presented. Some evidence is said to be incompetent, and cannot be allowed or admitted into the case. For example, evidence of a defendant’s prior criminal record is normally inadmissible in a criminal case. Evidence of his past crimes is not proof that he committed the crime which is the bases of the current case, and serves only to bias the jury against him. Similarly, a witness cannot testify third-hand to what another person said or saw. This kind of testimony is hearsay. A witness cannot testify that, “Joe said he saw Sam in his house.” The proper way to establish Sam’s whereabouts is to put Joe on the stand so he (Joe) can testify, “I saw Sam in his house.”

2. Substitute the italicized words and word combinations in the following sentences with the words you have found in activity 1.

Certain kinds of evidence cannot be introduced. Testimony which is based on hearsay is not permitted. Some evidence, such as that of a defendant’s previous criminal history, may not meet the requirements of law, and thus can not be permitted in the case either. Such evidence is usually prohibited in a criminal procedure. The defendant’s crimes in the past can not be regarded as a proof that he performed the present crime. Besides, such information may prejudice the jury against him. The parties in introducing their evidence should keep to the rules of evidence, which require that evidence must meet the requirements of law and be connected to the matter in hand. Evidence, even material one, such as an instrument of killing, should be introduced through persons who saw a crime or accident take place. Those persons can be even forced to be present at the trial by means of a legal document ordering to come to court and give evidence. In contrast to many people’s illusion, indirect evidence may be trustworthy to the extent that some guilty verdicts in criminal cases are based on such evidence.

3. Listen to the text on the presentation of evidence in US courts and fill in the gaps. You will hear the text twice.

All the

(2) evidence. The

(1) are entitled to

2. of witnesses who testify at trial is evidence.

Many times during the trial the attorneys may make objections to evidence (11)

by the other side or to questions asked by the other attorney. (12) are allowed to

object to these things when they consider them improper under the laws of (13). It

is up to the judge to (14), whether each objection was valid or invalid, and whether,

therefore, the evidence can be (15) or the question allowed. If the objection was

(16), the judge will sustain the objection. If the objection was not valid, the judge

will overrule the (17). These rulings do not reflect the judge’s opinion of the case or

whether the judge favours or does not (18) the evidence or the question to which

there has been an objection.

It is the duty of a juror to decide the weight or importance of (19) or testimony

allowed by the judge. The juror is also the sole judge of the credibility of (20), that

is, of whether their (21) is believable. In considering credibility, a juror may take

into account the witnesses’ opportunity and ability to observe the events about which they are

testifying, their memory and manner while (22), the reasonableness of their

(23) when considered in the light of all the other evidence in the case, their

possible bias or (24), and any other factors that bear on the (25) of the

testimony or on the importance to be given that testimony.

4. Explain the meaning of the following word-combinations from the text.

Party; be entitled; evidence; present evidence; testimony; give testimony; witness; testify; exhibits; attorney; opening statements; closing statements; offer; admit; judge; disregarded; strike off; record; trial; objections; valid (invalid); sustain the objection; overrule the objection; rulings; reflect; judge’s opinion of the case; to favour; favour the evidence; juror; weight of evidence; importance of evidence; sole judge; credibility of witnesses; believable; take into account; opportunity and ability to observe the events; reasonableness of testimony; in the light of all the evidence in the case; bias; bear on.

5. Work in pairs. Fill in the table below on the basis of exercises 1 and 3. Then use the table to tell your partner everything you know about the presentation of evidence and witnesses.

ШИ ' 7‘^^^H0wb'lDENCEISrafcSI N II.U _
j How is evidence usually presented?
What is ‘subpoena’?
What is ‘tangible evidence’?
Can circumstantial evidence be reliable?
What is the purpose of the rules of evidence?
What kinds of evidence cannot be presented?
PRESENTATION OF EVIDE	• • J : ‘imr*- ■ ‘ ~* ~ -4ШЖ- V ‘ - • .NCE^yHTNESSES^^

What is ‘evidence’ and what forms may it have?

What is not ‘evidence’?

When may the attorneys make objections to the evidence presented by the other side?

What does the judge do if the objection is valid?

What does the judge do if the objection is invalid?

What is the duty of a juror concerning evidence or testimony?

свідчень. «Повістка про явку до суду» - це судовий наказ свідку з’явитися до суду та дати свідчення. Свідки можуть розповідати про події, які вони бачили або про які чули, давати експертну оцінку чи свідчення з інших питань. Навіть такі очевидні докази, як знаряддя вбивства або документи, повинні зазвичай подаватися через свідчення свідка. Свідчення можуть бути прямими та непрямими. Усупереч поширеній думці непрямі докази нерідко бувають достатньо надійними. Навіть вироки у кримінальних справах можуть ґрунтуватися на непрямих доказах. Так, для встановлення факту злочину журі присяжних може використовувати як прямі, так і інші свідчення. Сторони не можуть предствляти докази як завгодно, а мають дотримуватися правил їх подання. Основною метою таких правил є запобігання впливу ненадійних доказів на рішення журі. Правила подання доказів вимагають, щоб вони були правомочними й мали відношення до справи, яка розглядається. Докази можуть бути правомочними, але не мати відношення до справи, що розглядається. Такі докази є нерелевантними (тобто не мають відношення до справи) або неприпустимими (тобто не можуть бути прийняті судом). Докази можуть бути правомочними і релевантними стосовно справи, що розглядається, але не додавати нічого суттєвого до справи. Такі докази є несуттєвими й неприйнятними. Однією з найважливіших функцій судді під час процесу є визначення припустимості доказів. Докази можуть бути настільки невідповідними, що навіть спроба їх використання у суді може привести до оголошення судового розгляду недійсним. Коли таке має місце, судовий процес відразу ж припиняється, а справа розглядається заново, пізніше та з іншими присяжними. У такій ситуації суддя може вилучити доказ із слухання за власним рішенням (тобто не чекаючи звернення з боку адвоката будь-якої сторони), аби уникнути оголошення судового розгляду недійсним. Зазвичай суддя не вилучає докази із розгляду без спеціального звернення (протесту) адвокатів противної сторони. Якщо суддя підтримує протест, то доказ вилучається. Якщо суддя відхиляє протест, доказ приймається. Необгрунтований допуск або відхилення доказів може бути підставою для апеляції.