Essay on Court Procedures: Determining Admissible Evidence & Privilege Communication

Introduction

The court determines the cases taken before it based on the laid down procedures. Before passing any judgment, the court has to determine whether the evidence presented by either side is admissible or not. Some evidence such as hearsay may not be admissible in a court of law as it is not verifiable and therefore not credible. The court also gives direction on privilege communication entails and the related exceptions. The privilege of communication differs from one state to another. The court will need to determine the exceptions permissible for the privilege of communication. The determination of what hearsay constitutes, the applicability of privilege of communication and the best evidence rule are essential in the determination of any case.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Testimony that is Hearsay

Hearsay cannot be used against someone in a court unless where a rule or statute provides otherwise. Hearsay may be defined as a testimony or documents which quote or make reference to people who are not present in court (Middleton, Lee, & Stewart, 2017). Such kind of testimony is not admissible in court as it lacks a firsthand witness. As such, it may become challenging to rely on such evidence in a court of law. When the person that is being quoted cannot be availed in court, it becomes impossible to establish credibility and do cross-examination. It becomes difficult to admit hearsay in a court since the person may add or deduct some information to serve their interests.

In this case, it is mentioned that Luigi "the pipe" Cardone heard through the grapevine that Big Sal Salvatore has been telling everyone how he received information from Frankie "the Lip" Bonnano about the murder of Freddie "Fingers" Malone by his wife. This is hearsay and may not be admissible in a court since Luigi obtained information form the grapevine and does not know how credible they are. Therefore, Luigi's source of information is not credible, and this makes it difficult to believe that information. Grapevine communication may not be a serious form of communication, and the credibility of the information given is not verifiable. Besides, Luigi wants a deal to testify against Slippery Sally. This shows that Luigi wants to be granted some favor in order for him to testify. This may affect the credibility of his account as he is likely to add or deduct some information to suit his side. Luigi did also not hear anything from Big Sal, and his testimony may be considered hearsay.

Privileged Communication

Privileged communication refers to the interaction between one party and another or one person and another in which the law recognizes as a private and protected relationship. The law protects privileged communication from being disclosed in a court proceeding. Privileged communication seeks to protect communications that were made in confidence in the context of professional relationship. Despite this provision, there exist exceptions, and the court interprets exceptions and allows information disclosure where necessary. Accountants may have privileged communication with their clients, and the court may honor this. However, if the interaction between the two led to a crime that is linked to the communication, then the court may not recognize that as privileged communication.

In the US, some states allow CPA-Accountant privilege, but this provision is narrowly interpreted. For example, Federal law does not recognize such a privilege. Even in those states where accountant-client privilege is recognized, such as Florida, Colorado and Pennsylvania, there exist exceptions (Ryskamp, 2007). The privilege is not recognized where information is disclosed to third parties, where the client waives the privilege through behavior that is not consistent with its assertion and in a malpractice action.

In this case, Tommy "Two Toes" D'Natalia has been colluding with his accountant to wash ill-gotten gains from his racketeering. While their communication may be covered under privilege communication, thus prohibiting the accountant from testifying, this may not be applicable in this case as they misused that privilege. The CPA has been using his accountant to facilitate a crime. Therefore, their testimony cannot be classified under privileged communication. However, any communication between them that is not linked to the crime may still be categorized under privilege communication.

Best Evidence Rule Functions

The Best Evidence Rule refers to the use of the original evidence to ascertain a claim in the court of law (Ferraro, 2012). This may include original writings, photographs, recordings, videos and original documents. The use of original evidence is required to remove any instances of biasness or alterations. However, in the modern legal aspect, the original is meant to include certified photocopies of the original, and prints from the same negative where, for a verifiable reason, the original is not available to be administered in court. However, in the case where the original document is not available, the party needs to provide an acceptable excuse as to why the original document cannot be obtained. If the court allows for the use of secondary evidence, then the party is allowed to proceed.

In the case murder case of the store owner, D'Angelo and Livorno were both involved in the robbery, but Bertoli pulled the trigger killing the store owner. As a rebate, both D'Angelo and Livorno wants to testify so that they can avoid the death penalty. In this case, it is possible to liaise with the prosecutor so that the two can be given immunity against the murder charges. These two were the accomplices of the accused meaning that they are the primary witnesses. They saw all that happened and are in the best position to give the truth. Thus, their evidence may be considered the Best Evidence and may be interpreted using the Best Evidence Rule. The two may be given immunity against murder charges in the exchange of a lesser accusation such as robbery. Normally, heist charges are not as severe as murder charges. Therefore, even if D'Angelo and Livorno are to be charged in the court, their willingness to testify against Bertoli may see the murder charges lifted against them and be charged for heist alone. However, it is essential to note that this immunity is a privilege and might be lifted at the prosecutor's discretion.

Conclusion

By and large, the determination of a case in court is dependent on the evidence presented in the court. Using the best evidence rule, the court should depend on original evidence, either oral or written, unless there is a justifiable reason to use a photocopy. In cases involving the privilege of communication, the court should determine the underlying exceptions and direct the parties involved appropriately.

References

Ferraro, E. (2012). Investigations in the workplace. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Middleton, K. R., Lee, W. E., & Stewart, D. R. (2017). The Law of Public Communication. Milton: Taylor and Francis.

Ryskamp, J. (2007). The eminent domain revolt: Changing perceptions in a new constitutional epoch. New York: Algora Pub.