What is Admissible Evidence?

In a California personal injury case, not all evidence is admissible. Your attorney will go through the following analysis to determine admissibility.
First, is it relevant to the issues at trial? Does the proffered evidence have what is called "probative value?" (Tending to prove or disprove an essential fact in the case).

Secondly, the attorney must lay a foundation. For instance, if evidence is the testimony of a witness, does the witness have personal knowledge? Is the witness mentally competent (i.e. of sound mind, not a very young child, etc.)

Is it hearsay? Hearsay is a complicated area. The law recognizes that a person should have the right to confront witnesses. So if Mary is testifying and says, "John said that the defendant's car ran the red light, this is hearsay and inadmissible to prove that the plaintiff ran the red light. It is inadmissible because the Plaintiff should have had the opportunity to interrogate John on the stand regarding what he saw. However, there are many exceptions to the hearsay rule (these exceptions tend to be based on the reliability of the statement given the circumstances under which it was made.) If John is not available for testimony, if your attorney is trying to get this information in, he will try to find an exception to the hearsay rule.

Is it privileged? Assuming the evidence is relevant, the attorney lays a foundation and the proffered evidence is not hearsay (or can come in under an exception) there are privileges that will sometime keep the evidence out. Potential privileges are: attorney-client, physician-patient ,psychotherapist-patient, victim-counselor, police officers' personnel records, marital privileges, self-incrimination, clergy-penitent, official information, journalists' sources, tax returns, political vote, trade secrets, Attorneys' Work Product Doctrine, and Right of Privacy. The law recognizes that some relationships must be protected and that protection of that relationship is more important than the admission of relevant evidence.

Other Public Policy Exclusions and Limitations can include, settlement offers and negotiations, collateral source rule, subsequent repairs following an accident, defendant's liability insurance coverage, medical peer review proceedings, illegal-obtained evidence. Even if the proffered evidence passes muster on all of the above, the issue remains, is the Value of evidence outweighed by the risks of introducing it? Will presentation of the proposed evidence result in undue consumption of time, undue prejudice, confusing the issues or misleading the jury?

Satisfaction of above equals admissible evidence