*
Small Claims Court If the hearsay rules and exceptions are racking your brain (don’t worry, they rack lawyers’ brains, too) and you’re planning on taking your car accident case to small claims court, then you’re in luck. A police report is usually admissible in small claims court. Generally speaking, there are no funky hearsay rules or exceptions here because, as demonstrated by California and Colorado’s small claims rules, the Federal Rules of Evidence typically don’t apply (or aren’t strictly followed) in small claims courts. -
Judge Judy is not a real judge (though she once was). The proceedings on Judge Judy, People’s Court, et al., are arbitrations, not judicial proceedings. The rules of evidence may be applied liberally or not at all, at the arbitrator’s discretion. Judge Judy most likely rejects oral hearsay testimony because she doesn’t find it reliable, not because the rules of evidence distinguish it from written hearsay.
The judge doesn’t get to decide whether the rules of evidence apply. I’ve mentioned twice in this thread that the rules of evidence may not apply to the same extent in small claims proceedings. However, that is a function of California law and the applicable rules of procedure, not what the judge wants.
The Federal Rules of Evidence don’t apply in any state court proceedings. Funny, that.
You are correct, in general as far as Superior Court, but not for Small Clams, where indeed, a Police report is admissible, despite your claim in post #26.
And since the OP *is *going to Small Claims In CA, the rules of evidence in other courts in other states are not meaningful.
Judge Judy is not something to ever cite for actual court procedure.
But I do agree with your overall point. I haven’t found any cut-and-dry codes saying that police reports are admissible in small claims court, but you’re right that the top hits on Google indicate they are. The California courts website lists police reports under their list of “things that can be evidence in small claims court”.
I know very little about police reports and the rules of evidence. And I know NOTHING about CA law. Also, whether or not evidence is admissible, has little to do with the weight it will be given.
But think of this - unless the cop caught you speeding or saw the accident happen, the policeman completing the report has no personal knowledge about what actually happened. Instead, he is expressing his opinion, based on everything he saw and heard, and his understanding of the law. So his report is evidence of SOMETHING - the fact that an accident occurred, that police were called, names and info about the people/vehicles involved, and that the cop had a certain opinion - but not direct evidence of the actual events at the time of the accident. Does that make sense?
As opposed to a medical report, which is completed by someone who presumably had direct personal experience with the examination, treatment, etc.
I have a minor nitpick with this statement as written, but it’s not relevant to the OP here. In support of your broader point and your Nolo cite, for the OP’s benefit, the California court website itself also recommends bringing a police report in a small claims case if you have it:
[quote=California Courts website]
2. Prepare the proof to take to court
Take any papers that support your story and take 2 more copies of everything. This is called “evidence.” Evidence can be:[ul][li]Contracts[/li][li]Estimates (take at least 2)[/li][li]Bills[/li][li]Photographs[/li][li]Diagrams that show how an accident happened [/li][li]Police reports[/ul][/li][/quote]
Emphasis added.
I would love for that to happen.
Soon-to-be-ex-lawyer: “Your honor, my argument has precedent.”
Judge: “Oh?”
Soon-to-be-ex-lawyer: “Your honor, I cite Jones vs Smith from the courtroom of Judge Judy.”
Judge: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Get. Out.
That isnt what I am claiming. I am claiming the the Small Claims judge decides what evidence is admissible.
Well, yes. But he can only do so consistent with the law. If California’s rules of procedure applicable to small claims actions permit admission of hearsay evidence, he can do that. If they don’t, he can’t.
One thing I’m a little unclear about is whether the OP’s car was legally registered at the time of the accident. In my state, the car can’t be registered unless there is at least liability insurance. If there was no insurance at all, can the car even be legally operated on the road? (The answer is, in my state, “No.” It could be driven with a dealer plate, but in that case the dealer would have insurance on the car.)
I have no idea what impact this would have in small claims court, but I would think that it would not be helpful to have been operating the car without it being properly registered.
From t he OP
So is the Plaintiff telling a new story here? OR are they telling the same thing in the police report but releasing themselves from fault?
Hoping for an update since the court date was 6/12.