The Federal Court Rules of Evidence control the admissibility of evidence in a federal case. The decision as to whether or not certain evidence is admitted can mean the difference between a Guilty verdict and your freedom. By carefully analyzing evidence in your federal criminal case, an experienced federal criminal defense lawyer can reduce the likelihood of a conviction and minimize the severity of the charges and penalties you face.
The Federal Court Rules of Evidence are highly technical and incredibly complex. If you are facing federal criminal charges, the stakes are high. Your freedom is on the line. You need a criminal defense lawyer who thoroughly understands the Federal Court Rules of Evidence and how they will apply in your case, and knows how to use them to your maximum advantage.
With offices in Philadelphia and New York City, federal criminal defense lawyer Hope C. Lefeber has over 30 years of experience representing people in federal criminal trials. She thoroughly understands the Federal Court Rules of Evidence and knows how to use them to her client’s benefit.
The purpose of the Federal Rules of Evidence is to “administer every proceeding fairly, eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay, and promote the development of evidence law, to the end of ascertaining the truth and securing a just determination.”
As a preliminary matter, the rules of evidence in federal court focus on three primary inquiries:
Beyond these three basic questions are technical issues of relevance, character, hearsay, authentication, and more. Given the modern prevalence of electronic media, the importance of understanding how the rules of evidence apply to digital evidence cannot be understated.
Make no mistake — while the Federal Rules of Evidence may seem esoteric, their application will impact the outcome of your case. When your freedom is on the line, you need an experienced criminal defense attorney who understands the rules of evidence and knows how to use them to your advantage.
The rules of evidence provide a legal framework for determining the evidence that can be presented in a court of law. They help maintain the integrity of the legal system by promoting fairness, reliability, and consistency in the presentation and evaluation of information. When preparing a case in federal court, a thorough understanding of the rules of evidence is essential.
The most important factor in determining whether evidence will be admitted is whether it is relevant. “Relevant evidence” includes any evidence that would make the existence of a material fact “more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” As a general rule, relevant evidence is admissible, while evidence deemed irrelevant is not.
Even if the judge decides the evidence is relevant, it can still be excluded if it would confuse or mislead jurors, or if the risk that it would unfairly prejudice jurors against the defendant outweighs the “probative value” of the evidence.
Hearsay is any statement made outside of court that is “offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”
Hearsay is generally not admissible because the judge or jury cannot form an opinion as to whether the person making the out-of-court statement is reliable. However, there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule, and many statements made outside of court are admissible. The defendant’s out-of-court statements are excluded from the definition of hearsay if they are contrary to his penal interests.
Under the Fifth Amendment, no person may “be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Neither the court nor the prosecutor can force a defendant to testify or provide evidence that would incriminate them.
Federal law enforcement agents do not have free reign when conducting a criminal investigation. Their actions are limited by the protections provided in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and other federal laws. When law enforcement agents violate a suspect’s constitutional rights, any illegally obtained evidence should be excluded from consideration and cannot be used to try to convict the suspect.
Evidence must be excluded from consideration if law enforcement agents or prosecutors violate a defendant’s constitutional rights in obtaining that evidence, such as by violating a person’s Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches and seizures, Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel.
As technology continues to evolve and people’s lives increasingly move into the digital realm, courts have had to wrestle with how to apply the federal court rules of evidence to digital media. Of course, digital evidence can be admitted in a federal criminal court case. But whether digital evidence is admissible often turns on two issues: (1) authenticity and (2) chain of custody.
Digital evidence is any information stored on, received, or transmitted using an electronic device. It includes text messages and social media posts, as well as a person’s internet browser history and information found on computers or portable electronics.
To be admissible, the person seeking to admit the digital evidence must first establish that the evidence is what the proponent claims it to be. Next, the proponent must prove that the digital evidence has not been tampered with and is preserved in its original form. There should be documentation about where the evidence was collected and who owned and had access to the device. Records custodians must be subpoenaed; it does not suffice to simply obtain the information from a cell phone or computer.
Courts have generally ruled that social media is admissible because a user does not have a reasonable expectation that their social media content will remain private. If you share incriminating information — even in a supposedly “private” chat — there is a high likelihood it can be used against you in court.
The admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence in federal court can profoundly impact whether a defendant will be found guilty. To mount a successful defense and give yourself the best chance of the charges, it is crucial that you work with an experienced federal criminal defense lawyer who thoroughly understands the federal court rules of evidence.
For over 30 years, Hope Lefeber has defended people accused of crimes in federal court. She is a staunch and tenacious advocate who is meticulously prepared and has a comprehensive command of the federal court rules of evidence. To put her expertise to work for you, contact the Law Offices of Hope C. Lefeber today.
© 2024 Law Offices of Hope Lefeber| View Our Disclaimer | Privacy Policy