Depending on the country and where you live, there are different ways to get evidence rejected in court. If you have been accused of a serious crime, then it pays to hire a good lawyer. However, if your financial resources do not allow you legal assistance, there are a number of things you could do.
The following article examines the subject based on the typical law of countries with a common law legal system.
Steps
Method 1 of 1: Get the Evidence Rejected
Step 1. Prove that the proof is not complete
In most states with a judicial system that guarantees the fairness of trials, evidence is not allowed if it is incomplete, altered and not original. It can be argued that videos and recordings have been cut or that they do not fully contain the event being demonstrated. This line of defense is especially good if you have a legitimate reason for committing the alleged offense. You argue that if the tape had continued to record or if the recording had started a little earlier, it would have been more useful, because it would have put your arguments in a better light. If a full registration is given as evidence to your detriment and you point out that it is only partial evidence, then the process will be slowed down for the purpose of acquiring the full registration, provided the judge gives the other party more time, because, in the event on the contrary, he may also refuse to acquire it as evidence. The judge could also accuse the other party of not having prepared … but who would have presented an hour of recording if his intention was to highlight 10 minutes. It often happens when you have a document in store to question you about. To unhinge this attempt, try to claim that you felt pressured to say what you said.
Step 2. If the proof is complete and original, such as a voice or video recording, it will probably be difficult to get it rejected
However, you can argue that it does not adequately represent the situation. For example, if there was an audio-free footage of you being shot at someone, you could argue that the offended person told you to hit them. In America and Australia, for example, if a person tells you to hit them, this invitation invalidates their right to accuse you of assault. In reality, it is you who can accuse the other party of aggression for reacting to the beatings without your consent, adding that the rest of the struggle occurred in self-defense or provocation.
Step 3. Evidence can be rejected if collected illegally
Only the police can investigate without a search warrant, if they have reasonable suspicion, i.e. a factual reason to suspect that a person has illegal goods and, in some areas, even to believe that evidence can be destroyed or disposed of, if not an immediate search starts. Of course, they can also search property (such as a car), if you give your consent, as long as you make it clear that you do not accept a personal search and ask if they have reason to suspect you. They can do a search even if you are under arrest for a major criminal offense (which involves a jury trial, so go to a lawyer). If the search was unlawful, you can request that the evidence be rejected by the court. A search can be considered unlawful in most cases where it occurs at a person of a different sex (unless they are a doctor) or in embarrassing situations, such as in front of a camera or other people, without having given their consent. This is because the protection of the right to privacy is envisaged.
Step 4. Has your privilege against self-incrimination been violated?
In Australia the police are not required to tell you that you have the right to remain silent until you are accused of committing a crime. In America, the Miranda rights are read at any possible arrest. If not done, the interrogation can be rejected. In both cases, the police will try to question the suspect as much as possible before making the actual arrest and what he says can be used against him. What is said during the interrogation can be rejected, if it is a question of minors without the presence of a parent or guardian or if the suspected offender seeks the assistance of a lawyer, even before being declared under arrest and in case the interrogation continues without giving acceptable means and time to request the intervention of the lawyer. The police can hold back for a long time to carry out his interrogation. In Australia there is talk of 8 hours for the arrest and 4 hours for the interrogation without bringing any charge (the arrest does not imply that the accusations are made to calm the arrested person). Any questioning that exceeds this time can be rejected for coercion.
Step 5. Only the police have the right to question and collect evidence on the person's identity, if they have reasonable doubts that they are involved in a crime or that they have useful information
This is not true for alcohol testing of the balloon and in some circumstances where it acquires additional powers for safety purposes. In the event of an interrogation, no matter how weak or innocent you are, ask for a lawyer before the interrogation continues (even if it's a bluff) and keep as much evidence as you can.
Step 6. Support coercion or threats
Even if the police have a confession from you, it can be rejected if you say you felt threatened or coerced when you released it. In Australia and in some places it is possible that it will be rejected if it turns out that the police have proposed a middle ground, such as rephrasing a sentence or paying only a fine. Even a testimony filed against you by a friend can be rejected, if it turns out, perhaps thanks to the admission of a policeman, that there was a compromise or coercion behind it. Indeed, a line of defense to adopt may be to say that you committed the crime because you were under threat or to safeguard your own safety or that of others. This is commonly the case in automotive litigation trials. Since the speed limit had recently changed and you were being pressed by other vehicles, you were forced to slow down to the maximum allowed to maintain a safe speed. The law establishes the possibility of transgressing only to the extent that the transgression itself occurs in a safe regime, unless it is an emergency, and in many cases where a road sign was not an emergency for the court, the lawsuit was dismissed only because the photos taken showed that the speed had changed where a fine had been detected. Some people escape investigation, forcing others to commit a crime in their place. If you declare that you have received a phone call and the recordings reveal that you have not had it, you risk having more problems than before.
Step 7. Does the evidence highlight or relate to past charges or convictions?
If this is the case, local laws will likely protect you from possible presumptions, making any past offenses (in which you have been found guilty, innocent or pleaded guilty) inadmissible. You can also request a second trial if your suspicion is supported by virtue of past crimes. In fact, if the suspicion that fell on you as a result of a search was based on past allegations, then you can request that what is found during that search, for example, is not allowed as evidence in court. It often happens that you are accused of possessing or smuggling marijuana where an officer admits that the search was based on the story of the accused; or you can give your consent to the search. Never agree to a search without a warrant. However, do not object if you are subjected to an illegal search, as anything they find is not admissible as evidence (no reasonable doubt), but you can be arrested for resistance.
Step 8. Witnesses are the main source of evidence and this is particularly problematic in civil cases
This is because the witness can make your life difficult. However, the judge must be willing to support him. Fortunately, in criminal proceedings, even if only for a cause of disturbance to public order, the prosecutor is required to prove the evidence of the accused's guilt (burden of proof). Although you are guilty, the witness may lie by claiming that he saw more than there was to see and this will be worse than it actually happened. If you are heavily involved in such a thing, as many are, you can simply say that the witness is lying until you take a stand. Attack the false statements as best you can, asking for details that the witness should know, but which are unlikely to be linked to other evidence or testimony. Don't limit yourself to just asking questions, but press on saying, for example, “Really? This is what you remember. The last witness remembered the opposite. What do you think about it?" … “Have you seriously seen this? You don't seem so sure "…" Are you lying about all or part of your testimony? " or if you have the opportunity to intimidate him, try: "Your statements contradict what three policemen said and you know it is a criminal offense to lie in your position". It is not convenient for the witness to lie and make up a story, which is often not exact, because the police, for their part, cannot remember every charge. If you can surprise him with even the small details, you could question him about the accurate sequence of events and ask the judge to reject his testimony.
Step 9. If you can do without it, don't take a stand
The best way to keep evidence from being admitted by the court is not to provide it where you are not legally required to do so. Taking a stand and then declaring that you prefer not to answer, because it is your right not to say anything that could incriminate you, is a suicide in a trial. Furthermore, there is no such right in Australia. Most of the sentences are given on what the accused declares based on the position taken. If you are legally representing yourself, be sure to say everything you want to say while questioning your witnesses and those of the attorney. If you do this, then a statement like "It seems to me that there is no need for me to take a stand" is equivalent to a much stronger declaration of innocence than a statement like: "I choose to take a stand". However, this attitude rests on what the witnesses have stated, as any statements made “outside your position” will not be admitted to the evidence and will probably not be considered by the judge when deciding. A lawyer will be able to advise you adequately if it is in your best interest to take a stand.
Step 10. If you are urged to take a stand, do not be afraid to say that it is a stupid request, keeping calm and containing aggression
If you are not asked in the form of a question, then do not answer. Do not react to the defiant statements, as they do not constitute evidence, but simply reply. If you are not asked a question, but only suggested a scenario waiting for a reaction, adding: "What do you have to say?", There is a series of excellent answers to be given, such as "No, it did not happen in this way "or" I have not been asked any question "or" It is impossible to answer this, because it does not follow the actual succession of events ". Also, you can try saying "I am not aware of this" or "I could only guess and guesswork is not allowed". Do what you can to make it seem like you are not directly involved. Of course, never say that you assume what you should know, for example, in response to the question "How fast did you go?". Finally, don't say anything offensive to anyone, as it can backfire.
Step 11. Very often a lawsuit will be brought forward with only one evidence or testimony
If you believe you are getting the legal action rejected or questioned, then kindly ask the judge (as if you are not 100% sure) if it can be dismissed due to the lack of substantive evidence. Of course, if rejected, the police can try again later. In America, one could also let the case take its course, crossing the fingers on the outcome of the sentence. If, however, this happens, double jeopardy exists and, even in the case of further evidence, this can be used if you were to be charged with a different offense (which may happen, sometimes even if you have previously been acquitted). In Australia, being able to have a legal action rejected can prove to be a winning initiative, but the presentation of new evidence can lead to a review of your case (see R v Carroll).
Advice
- Often lying, instead of telling the truth, can make you seem more honest in the eyes of others. It can be tempting, but if the truth isn't discriminating (against you) or so unbelievable, then avoid doing it.
- If you are prompted by something like a misrepresentation and on the other hand you have evidence to contradict you, simply try to say "If you are suggesting that I have made a mistake, I admit the possibility, but for my part I can tell the events. as I remember them ".
- Do not represent yourself for criminal offenses for which you risk imprisonment.
- Never lose your cool. Show your emotions, even saying "I can't believe you lied," without being aggressive. The judge and jury easily condemn aggressive people.
- Never lose your temper in front of a witness, as you will show that you have little character.
- Keep the same version. To say that what you have stated has been misunderstood is fine as long as you do not seem to change the version of events.
- There is a saying among lawyers: "Whoever represents himself in court is either a madman or a client". It is best to hire a lawyer if possible.
- Never use the word "remembered", as it means your current version of events is not that fresh in your memory. It must never be "as I remembered", but always "as I remember".
Warnings
- Do not take sides, unless it is necessary. Even if you are innocent, there are ways to make yourself look guilty.
- If you change the version because you were wrong, then you admit that the previous one was a mistake. If not, they will use it against you to make you look dishonest.
- Telling the truth does not imply appearing honest. Most sincere people admit the possibility of being misunderstood. You don't do it. Be convinced that what you say is absolutely correct.
- A tip says: if you make a mistake, admit it. The other says never to allow the possibility that mistakes can be made. Depending on your personal safety, it is a good idea to choose one of the two. If you do not allow the possibility of making a mistake, but then you are forced to admit the opposite, the image of security you have built will collapse.
