To all lawyers or graduate law students???

What is it called when a lawyer in court uses evidence which is not admissible. For example when a lawyer says "In johns testimony you did...." What is it called when someone does this in court.

There is a certain type of objection that the judge can give

Reply 1

MidgetFever

You don't need to be a law graduate to know that it's simply called inadmissible evidence.

The judge would claim that the piece of evidence is irrelevant/inadmissible (depending on the circumstances)

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 2

Moshhahy hfbbnj

I know that is would be called inadmissible evidence, however there is another law term which relates to it

Original post by MidgetFever

Reply 3

MidgetFever

Original post by Moshhahy hfbbnj

I know that is would be called inadmissible evidence, however there is another law term which relates to it

"Related to it" is quite broad, but if you're talking about the term itself then no, it's just inadmissible evidence.

Luckily the law doesn't always overcomplicate things with Latin phrases.

Reply 4

Moshhahy hfbbnj

I have found what it is called, its hearsay!

Reply 5

MidgetFever

Original post by Moshhahy hfbbnj

I have found what it is called, its hearsay!

Hearsay is just one type of inadmissible evidence... You didn't ask for what the different qualifications for it are, just the term itself.

Reply 6

nulli tertius

Original post by MidgetFever

Hearsay is just one type of inadmissible evidence... You didn't ask for what the different qualifications for it are, just the term itself.

Hearsay is normally admissible in civil procedures and frequently admissible in criminal proceedings.

Reply 7

MidgetFever

Original post by nulli tertius

Hearsay is normally admissible in civil procedures and frequently admissible in criminal proceedings.

Yes, but as with most legal rules: there's exceptions.

If it doesn't meet the requirements under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 it's rendered as inadmissible.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 8

nulli tertius

Original post by MidgetFever

Yes, but as with most legal rules: there's exceptions.

Did you read what I put?

I said "normally" in relation to civil proceedings and "frequently" in relation to criminal proceedings.

What further qualification was necessary?

It is normally cold in December and frequently cold in Scotland.

What do you add by saying that there are exceptions?

If it doesn't meet the requirements under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 it's rendered as inadmissible.

Do you really think the CriminalJustice Act 2003 has any relevance to civil proceedings? In other words it was like me saying:-"Australia and the USA use dollars" and you replying "dollars are nicknamed greenbacks" yet Australian dollars are not nicknamed greenbacks.

Moreover your statement isn't even true for criminal procedure because section 118 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 preserves the common law rules for admission of hearsay which apply to vast majority of hearsay admitted in the criminal justice system.