Are Emails Admissible in Court?
In the courtroom, emails are more prone to the problem of hearsay-within-hearsay. When an email re-transmits a string of prior messages, each message may need to be authenticated separately before it can be admitted.
Because of this difficulty, parties who seek to admit damaging email evidence must carefully prepare for the opposition’s presentation. They must know how their opponent will use it and how it fits into the overall context of the case.
Articles
Emails are often a powerful source of evidence in cases involving employment law, civil liability, or criminal investigation. However, like any piece of evidence that is used in court, email communication must meet certain standards to be admissible.
First and foremost, all email communications should be authenticated. This means proving that they were written by the person who allegedly sent them. This can be accomplished through admissions by the sender, testimony of someone who received the emails, or direct evidence such as a personal signature on the message.
Next, counsel must identify the basis upon which to admit the email evidence into court. This is particularly important for emails that may be inadmissible under one of the many exceptions to the hearsay rule.
For example, an email may be admitted if it is offered for a business purpose or as circumstantial evidence of the declarant’s state of mind. Similarly, an email that describes the contents of a particular meeting or event may be admitted as evidence of what actually took place during that meeting or event.
Alternatively, an email that is offered as proof of an opposing party’s actions and conduct could be admitted under the so-called “self-serving” exception to the hearsay rule. This exception applies only to self-inculpatory statements, and it excludes any non-self-inculpatory statement made in a follow-up email.
In the end, if you are willing to satisfy these evidentiary hurdles, email communications can be an effective means of establishing important dates and times in dispute timelines or helping your client explain their actions. Regardless of your strategy, you should always seek to understand the rules on admissibility and determine whether the e-mails are helpful or damaging.
In addition, counsel should be aware that if the e-mail is offered as part of a witness examination, it will need to be verified by the examining attorney or a witness. This can be done through a process known as forensics, which examines the content of an email to ensure it is authentic and legitimate. If this is not possible, a print-out of the e-mail must be offered as an exhibit. The examining attorney or a witness can then verify that it is an accurate reproduction of the original.
Conjunctions
Conjunctions are words that join two or more objects, phrases or clauses. They can appear in the beginning, middle or end of a sentence depending on the position of the objects they are connecting.
In the English language, there are three main types of conjunctions. These include coordinating, subordinating and correlative conjunctions. Understanding the differences between these conjunctions can help you choose the right one for your writing and ensure that your sentences sound logical.
Coordinating conjunctions are used to join words, phrases and clauses of equal importance. They are often found at the beginning of a sentence and can also link two independent clauses together. Examples of coordinating conjunctions are and, nor, but, because, if and so on.
Subordinating conjunctions are used to introduce dependent clauses. Dependent clauses are groups of words that contain a subject and a verb but cannot stand alone as full sentences. These clauses must be attached to a main clause with a subordinating conjunction in order to be grammatically correct.
The most common subordinating conjunctions are after, before and since. These conjunctions are also prepositions and are used to introduce a dependent clause that will be subordinated to the following independent clause.
Another type of subordinating conjunction is the concession subordinating conjunction. This kind of conjunction connects a dependent clause to an independent clause by conceding any particular point between them.
Correlative conjunctions are also very common and can be found in nearly every sentence. They are usually paired and always travel in pairs.
They join various elements of a sentence that should be treated as grammatically equal, but can cause problems when they are used in parallel form. This is because they usually join several different words and phrases, rather than a single word or phrase.
Some of these conjunctions can be used to join two independent clauses, but a comma is required before and after the conjunction when they do so. When the independent clauses are both closely related, they can be linked by a semicolon.
Sentences
The rule of hearsay is that out-of-court statements, such as emails and text messages, are generally inadmissible unless they qualify for one of several exceptions. It is a rule that practitioners usually have to work around when seeking to admit a client’s own beneficial or exculpatory email evidence at trial.
Despite this, emails can be admissible in court as a means of establishing the intent of an individual or challenging circumstantial evidence. However, a lawyer should take the time to examine the admissibility issues involved with email communications and make sure that he or she understands how to use this evidence effectively at trial.
A good lawyer should be able to authenticate the contents of an email and be prepared for testimony from both the sender and the recipient to establish that the contents of an email are what they appear to be. This requires knowledge of the facts surrounding the email, such as the date and time it was sent or received, as well as the name and contact information of the person who sent or received it.
In addition, a lawyer should be familiar with the fact that some e-mails are embedded into other emails in what is known as a “chain” or a “string.” These communications are a bit different than ordinary emails and may require more authentication procedures.
Finally, a lawyer should be aware of the potential for manipulation and alteration of an e-mail. The ability to alter or delete an e-mail from a server is quite common, as is the possibility of changing its timestamp and message text.
A lawyer should also be prepared to argue that the contents of an e-mail are not hearsay at all and can be offered under a “self-serving” exception to the hearsay rule. Despite this exception, the self-serving nature of an e-mail will still be considered a matter of weight by the fact finder.
Objections
Emails are sometimes admitted into evidence, but this depends on the case. If your trial lawyer can show that the email is relevant, authentic, and admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule, then it may be worth a try.
For example, Rule 801(d)(1)(B) states that an e-mail message that’s consistent with a witness’s trial testimony doesn’t constitute hearsay if it’s offered to rebut a claim of recent fabrication or to testify about testimony shaped by improper influence or motive. This rule is not perfect, however–if a witness’s trial testimony about the e-mail isn’t consistent with it, an e-mail message that’s identical to it would still be admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(A), if it’s offered to show that the witness had an “opportunistic reason” to fabricate a prior statement.
The best way to get an e-mail into evidence is to tie it into the examination of a witness who’s the sender, recipient (including cc or bcc recipients), or otherwise connected with its subject matter. Once you have this person’s testimony, then you can rely on the message to establish a chronology that helps you frame the dispute or take your opponent’s case back in time.
In addition, you need to be able to articulate the non-hearsay reason why it’s relevant and what it tends to prove–and to be willing to live with a limiting instruction that informs the jury that it can’t be considered for its ostensible truth.
The best way to make your emails admissible is to know the applicable rules and apply them correctly. If you’re not sure what the right rules are for your situation, it’s always best to consult with an experienced attorney. A good trial lawyer will see the value in preparing for the potential use of emails and other electronic evidence in court. They’ll make sure the messages are introduced in the proper manner and crafted for maximum effectiveness. They’ll also be able to tell you when it’s appropriate to seek to exclude an email from evidence because it’s insufficiently relevant, authentic, or admissible under the right exceptions.