Deck 6: Competency of Evidence and Witnesses

Question 1

Define competent evidence and incompetent evidence, and give one example of each.

Answer 1

Competent evidence refers to evidence that is admissible in court and meets the legal standards for reliability and relevance. This type of evidence is typically obtained through credible sources and is considered trustworthy by the court. For example, a signed contract between two parties would be considered competent evidence in a breach of contract case.

On the other hand, incompetent evidence refers to evidence that is not admissible in court due to its lack of reliability or relevance. This type of evidence may be hearsay, obtained illegally, or simply not credible. An example of incompetent evidence would be a rumor or gossip that is not supported by any credible sources or facts.

Question 2

If evidence is found to be incompetent, it is usually because the courts have determined that it falls within one of three general categories. Name these three, and give examples of evidence that would fall within each of the categories.

Answer 2

The three general categories of incompetent evidence are hearsay, relevance, and prejudice.

Hearsay evidence is when a statement is made out of court and is offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted. For example, if a witness testifies that they heard someone else say that the defendant committed the crime, that would be considered hearsay.

Relevance refers to evidence that does not have any bearing on the case at hand and does not help to prove or disprove any fact in question. For instance, if in a case about a car accident, the color of the defendant's shirt is brought up as evidence, it would likely be deemed irrelevant.

Prejudice involves evidence that is more likely to inflame the emotions of the jury or judge rather than help them make a fair and impartial decision. This could include graphic photos or videos that serve no purpose other than to shock or upset the jury.

Question 3

Why is illegally obtained evidence excluded from use at criminal trials under the concept of incompetency?

Answer 3

Illegally obtained evidence is excluded from use at criminal trials under the concept of incompetency primarily because of the legal principle known as the "exclusionary rule." This rule is a judicially created doctrine that applies in many jurisdictions, particularly in the United States, as a means to enforce constitutional rights and to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. The exclusionary rule serves several purposes:

1. **Protection of Constitutional Rights**: The exclusionary rule helps to protect citizens' constitutional rights, such as those guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. If law enforcement officers violate these rights by obtaining evidence through illegal means, such as searching without a warrant or probable cause, the evidence they collect is typically considered inadmissible in court.

2. **Deterrence of Police Misconduct**: By excluding illegally obtained evidence, the rule acts as a deterrent to law enforcement officers who might otherwise be tempted to disregard legal procedures. The idea is that if officers know that evidence obtained through illegal methods will not be admissible in court, they will be less likely to engage in such practices.

3. **Judicial Integrity**: Allowing evidence that was obtained in violation of the law to be used in court proceedings would undermine the integrity of the judicial system. Courts are meant to uphold the law, and using evidence that was gathered unlawfully would be contrary to this principle. It would send a message that the ends (convicting the accused) justify the means (breaking the law to gather evidence), which is antithetical to the rule of law.

4. **Fairness**: The exclusionary rule promotes fairness in the criminal justice system. Allowing illegally obtained evidence would unfairly prejudice the defendant, who has the right to be tried based on legally obtained evidence and proper legal procedures.

It is important to note that the exclusionary rule is not absolute. There are exceptions to the rule, such as the "good faith" exception, where evidence may not be excluded if law enforcement officers relied on a defective search warrant that they believed to be valid. Additionally, the "inevitable discovery" doctrine allows for the admission of evidence that would have been discovered lawfully even without the illegal search.

In summary, the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence under the concept of incompetency is a fundamental aspect of criminal law that serves to uphold constitutional rights, deter police misconduct, maintain the integrity of the judicial system, and ensure fairness in legal proceedings.

Question 4

Is documentary evidence subject to the same competency rules as oral testimony?

Question 5

What additional tests must documentary evidence pass in order to be considered competent?

Question 6

In the federal courts, scientific tests, experiments, and demonstrations must meet the requirements set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. What are the general standards that produce competent scientific evidence under the Daubert case?

Question 7

To prove that the defendant committed an offense, evidence is often admitted concerning the events that led to his or her apprehension, such as the conduct of a dog trained to uncover illegal drugs. What foundation for canine evidence is necessary to prove that such evidence is competent?

Question 8

There are several methods of showing that a telephone conversation has been authenticated. Explain one way to authenticate a telephone conversation so that it should be considered competent evidence?

Question 9

Explain the concept of negative evidence. A witness may testify generally as to what he or she saw or heard, but may the witness testify concerning what he or she did not hear or did not see? If so, under what conditions?

Question 10

Can illegally seized evidence be considered competent and admissible for some purposes and not for others?

Question 11

List and explain the four elements of competency for adults to qualify as witnesses. Explain.

Question 12

Does the fact that a witness was formerly committed to a mental hospital necessarily render his or her testimony incompetent? Discuss. Who has the burden of proving mental incapacity? What is the test?

Question 13

What are the elements of competency for a child to be considered available to testify? What does the judge do that serves as a substitute for an oath for a child witness? Is there a fixed age at which a child becomes a competent witness? Discuss.

Question 14

What was the rationale for the common law rule that a wife was incompetent to testify as a witness for or against her husband? Under modern rules, can one spouse testify against the other? Do exceptions exist?

Question 15

Does a criminal conviction have any effect on the competency of a witness to testify? Does it make any difference what type of crime the witness was convicted of? Explain.

Question 16

Does the religious faith or absence of religious affinity have any effect on the competency of a witness? Does the opposing attorney have the right to challenge the testimony of a witness by bringing up the religious faith of the witness? Discuss.

Question 17

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 605, may a judge who presides at a trial testify as a witness in that trial? Has this federal rule been adopted by the states? Discuss.

Question 18

Should a juror be incompetent to testify in a case in which he or she is sitting as a juror? Would this create problems during deliberations?

Question 19

The defendant in the case of People v. Thomas was convicted of the murder of his wife and her boyfriend. On the witness stand, he claimed that a witness with whom the defendant had served time was incompetent to testify against him. Defendant Thomas alleged that the testimony of the former inmate was simply too incredible to be believed, partly because the former inmate referred to the defendant's deceased wife by the wrong name and also indicated that the murder weapon was a statue when it had been a piece of wood with a nail in it. Is a proposed witness generally considered competent until other factors indicate otherwise? What is the usual test for determining a witness' qualification to testify? If there are some problems with the testimony of a witness who is deemed competent by the trial judge, do those problems or inconsistencies affect the weight of the testimony?

Question 20

In State v. Wells, the trial court allowed a five-year-old alleged sexual assault victim to testify against a man accused of rape when Ohio has a rule that presumes anyone under 10 is presumed incompetent as a witness. The trial court conducted a hearing to determine the competency of the five-year-old and determined that she was competent as a witness to testify against defendant Wells. Does an appellate court reweigh the evidence that the trial court considered? What questions could one ask of a very young girl to show that she knows the truth and understands the difference between right and wrong or a lie from the truth? What did the appellate court determine concerning her competency to testify? What factors did the court consider in determining whether the child met the requirements of competency as a witness?

Question 21

If a challenged witness is found by the court to be competent to testify:

A) this automatically makes the evidence offered competent.
B) it does not necessarily mean that all of the evidence that may be offered by that witness is competent.
C) it is then not necessary to consider the relevancy and materiality hurdles.
D) evidence from that witness is admissible because the rules relating to the competency of the evidence and the competency of the witness are the same.

Question 22

As a general principle of law, competent evidence:

A) should be admitted if it meets the other tests.
B) is usually not relevant and should not be admitted.
C) is unreliable.
D) is given more weight than relevant evidence.

Question 23

There are three general categories of incompetent evidence. An example of evidence that is not admissible because a federal statute specifically prohibits its use is:

A) evidence obtained by an illegal search.
B) all hearsay evidence.
C) opinion testimony.
D) evidence illegally obtained by wiretapping or eavesdropping.

Question 24

Incompetent evidence that might be excluded by a trial judge would include:

A) any evidence of insanity that the defendant might wish to introduce to support his or her defense.
B) evidence that has been obtained in violation of a marital communication that was privileged.
C) any evidence offered by that same judge who is hearing the case in a federal court.
D) b and c are both correct responses.

Question 25

Evidence that is considered incompetent for one purpose:

A) cannot be admitted even if it meets the competency standard for another purpose.
B) cannot be considered as admissible because it was found incompetent for one purpose.
C) must be admitted if a judge thinks that fairness to the defendant requires admission even though it was found by the judge to be incompetent evidence.
D) may be admitted if it clearly meets the competency standards for a different purpose.

Question 26

In considering the competency of evidence, documentary evidence:

A) is not subject to the restrictive rules respecting relevancy, materiality, and competency as is oral testimony, because it is unchanging evidence once it has been reduced to a writing.
B) must meet only the same rules regarding competency, relevancy, and materiality as testimonial evidence.
C) there is little dispute concerning competency because documents can be examined by all parties to the lawsuit.
D) is subject to the same rules respecting relevancy and materiality as is oral testimony and, in addition, documentary evidence must be authenticated in order to be considered competent evidence.

Question 27

Evidence showing the outcome of a scientific experiment or test is generally:

A) admissible if the test is conducted in court but inadmissible if conducted out of court.
B) not admissible because this is incompetent evidence.
C) admissible where it is shown that the conditions under which the experiment or test was made were similar to the circumstances prevailing at the time of the occurrence.
D) admissible except when supplementing the testimony of a witness.

Question 28

Because telephone conversation evidence must be authenticated as belonging to a particular person before it can be considered competent to be introduced in court, in order to authenticate a voice as belonging to a particular person:

A) it is necessary that an authorized wiretap order be obtained.
B) one method of authentication is to require that the speaker's voice be identified by the witness/party to the phone conversation after proof that the witness possessed familiarity with the questioned voice of the other party.
C) a record keeper at the phone company that has the records must come to court and explain that computer records indicated that the two particular phones were connected at the relevant time.
D) the other person who was the questioned party to the phone conversation must come to court and admit that he or she talked on the phone to the first witness who mentioned the phone conversation. This is the sole method of authenticating a phone conversation.

Question 29

In order to authenticate a caller on a telephone sufficiently to make the conversation competent as evidence:

A) proof that the call came from a designated caller based on caller ID alone should be sufficient to allow the substance of the conversation to be introduced into evidence as having come from the person identified on the caller ID.
B) the person who received the call and who could identify the voice of the caller along with proof of the caller ID, should allow the substance of the conversation to be introduced into evidence.
C) so long as the caller identified himself or herself as being the particular person, whether or not the recipient of the call recognized the voice, such self-identification should be sufficient to make the evidence considered competent as evidence.
D) all of the above indicate that the conversation evidence should be considered competent and admissible into evidence.

Question 30

Where an issue has been raised concerning the competency of a witness to testify:

A) the witness generally must take an oath, have original perception, recollection, and an ability to communicate.
B) a decision is made by the jury after instructions from the judge rather than the judge himself or herself.
C) the judge makes the decision subject to the approval of the jury.
D) the same standards that are used to determine the competency of a defendant to stand trial are applied.

Question 31

The modern tendency regarding the competency of a witness to testify, where that witness has been judged mentally incompetent or insane, is:

A) the fact that the witness has been found on previous occasions to be mentally incompetent disqualifies that witness from testifying.
B) testimony of a person who has been found mentally incompetent is inadmissible unless he or she has been adjudicated sane before the trial begins.
C) an adjudication of insanity and confinement in a mental hospital renders the testimony of the witness incompetent.
D) not a bar to serving as a witness so long as the mentally defective person meets the four elements of competency required of other witnesses, generally.

Question 32

In determining the competency of a child to testify, several requirements should be met. Some of the requirements are that:

A) he or she must possess the capacity to observe events and be at least 10 years of age.
B) the child must have the ability to understand the questions and be at least 14 years of age.
C) it must be shown that the child witness has religious beliefs and a detailed knowledge of the nature of the oath.
D) it must be shown that the child has the ability to understand questions and to make intelligent answers with an understanding of the duty to speak the truth.

Question 33

Under the common law rule, a husband and wife were incompetent as witnesses for or against each other. The modern rule is that except for confidential communications made to each other during the existence of the marriage:

A) spouses may testify against each other but not for each other.
B) a spouse is allowed to testify as a witness for a defendant spouse.
C) a spouse may never testify against the other spouse regardless of the type of offense or against whom the crime was committed.
D) a spouse may testify in all matters just like an ordinary witness since the competency of a spouse is no longer in question.

Question 34

If a witness has been convicted of a felony prior to being called as a witness, he or she can take the stand because:

A) most states have enacted statutes that expressly remove the disqualification of a witness convicted of a crime to testify.
B) laws permit initial questions, but the testimony can be stricken from jury consideration by the other party because a person who has been convicted of a crime will not be considered reliable.
C) evidence concerning a witness's prior conviction of a crime will not be mentioned during the witness's testimony.
D) the general rule is that the prior conviction of a witness does not disqualify the witness and cannot affect the weight and credibility of the witness' testimony.

Question 35

In the Michigan case of People v. Thomas, the defendant had been accused of beating his wife and her boyfriend to death. A former inmate, who had served time with the defendant and who regularly conversed with defendant while they were incarcerated together in a county jail, testified that defendant confessed that he had killed his wife and her boyfriend by beating them with a statue. The former inmate had the wrong name for the defendant's wife, and the murder weapon was a board with nails protruding. The defendant alleged that the former inmate's testimony was so inherently incredible that the record showed that the former inmate did not have the capacity and sense of obligation to testify truthfully. Thomas argued that he should get a new trial based on the alleged incompetent testimony. The appellate court found that:

A) when a witness gives an incorrect name for a murder victim and when he alleged that he had spoken to the defendant who confessed to the former inmate, the witness does not have sufficient capacity to testify about the case.
B) when any witness testifies to obviously incorrect facts [name of victim and method of death], the witness is not competent to testify and a new trial is required under such circumstances.
C) the former inmate's testimony indicated that he possessed competency to testify, even though he had incorrectly identified the name of the defendant's wife and incorrectly described the weapon. The defendant failed to rebut the presumption of competency that every witness has.
D) a witness is always competent to testify and that errors only relate to the weight to be given the testimony. No new trial was ordered.

Question 36

In the case of State v. Wells, the court of appeals of Ohio considered the decision of a lower court relating to the competency of a five-year-old girl to testify at the trial against her accused sexual offender. The defendant appealed on the ground that the trial court failed to properly find that the child was competent as a witness. After considering the defendant's appellate contentions, the court of appeals decided:

A) to uphold the conviction because the child met the only test to be applied in determining whether a child is competent. It was clear that the child understood the difference between telling a lie and telling the truth.
B) to uphold the conviction because children must be competent to be able to make accusations of a sexual nature at such a young age.
C) to order a new trial on the theory that if there had been errors in admitting the child testimony because the child might not have been competent, because she would be older at a new trial, competency would not be an issue.
D) to order a new trial because, under the circumstances, the trial judge had not properly examined the child to determine her competency.