Question 1

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

Accepted Answer

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.

Accepted Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Is documentary evidence subject to the same...

Question 5

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

Accepted Answer

The answer of What additional tests must documentary evidence pass...

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?

Accepted Answer

The answer of In the federal courts, scientific tests, experiments,...

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?

Accepted Answer

The answer of To prove that the defendant committed an...

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?

Accepted Answer

The answer of There are several methods of showing that...

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?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Explain the concept of negative evidence. A...

Question 10

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

Accepted Answer

The answer of Can illegally seized evidence be considered competent...

Question 11

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

Accepted Answer

The answer of List and explain the four elements of...

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?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Does the fact that a witness was...

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.

Accepted Answer

The answer of What are the elements of competency for...

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?

Accepted Answer

The answer of What was the rationale for the common...

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.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Does a criminal conviction have any effect...

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.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Does the religious faith or absence of...

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.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Under Federal Rule of Evidence 605, may...

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?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Should a juror be incompetent to testify...

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?

Accepted Answer

The answer of The defendant in the case of People...

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?

Accepted Answer

The answer of In State v. Wells, the trial court...

Quiz 6: Competency of Evidence and Witnesses