I was watching a court case and a person had a letter written by their doctor. He couldn’t enter it into evidence because in part the doctor that wrote it and could testify to its authenticity was unavailable. Let’s assume I need to enter a letter, doctor’s note, receipt, etc. into evidence but the person who wrote it is dead so they cannot testify that they wrote it. How would it get entered into evidence?
External evidence about its provenance.
There is no rule at least where I am that says the only way to prove a document’s provenance is via its author.
The recipient of the letter can say who gave it to them. The doctor’s staff could give evidence that they had his file copy. And as to their handwriting perhaps. Any number of ways.
Yes, provenance is key. I assume - A letter that magically appears and conveniently backs the story of the person who provided it - not particularly believable. It falls on other evidence - paper type, letterhead, signature verification, corresponding doctor’s entry into his files, did this letter get shown to a disinterested 3rd party before the case arose, secretary’s corroboration, fingerprints, etc. - all different ways to prove its authenticity. I assume “it could not be entered into evidence” boiled down to the other side objecting and the judge finding insufficient corroboration. (The more conveniently it helps the provider’s case, the more seriously the need for corroboration) It depends too whether there is any forensic tests that can be done, and whether the person cares to spend the money to verify them.
(and if it is a fabrication, then prudence suggests at that point to drop it, rather than risk a deeper look that may prove the person is trying to perform a fraud upon the court.)
If such a rule existed, it would make the filing of wills in probate court really hard!
There is a business records exception that might apply. If a document is a record of regularly conducted business, and was made and kept in the ordinary course of business, than it can be authenticated by anybody who is familiar with the business process, even if they weren’t the person who performed it.
The presumption is then established that this was a record produced in the ordinary course, subject to rebuttal by the other side.
There’s also an “ancient documents” exception for documents prepared before 1998.
I know that our will is accompanied by an affidavit of execution, signed by our lawyer, that he saw the will signed by us and the witnesses.
In this case it was a doctor’s note saying he didn’t have to wear his seat belt due to a medical condition. The defendant thought sending a copy to the prosecutor was sufficient but the prosecutor basically said, “I don’t have to do your job for you and enter it into evidence.” so the defendant ask for a 15 minute recess so he could go get the original. The traffic judge said don’t bother since you can’t produce the doctor to testify that he wrote the letter.
But there are plenty of court cases I’m sure over “is this really his will”? That would need more corroboration that “look, I found a will leaving it all to me in his files.” Wintesses, time and date etc. are a good start.
Seems to me the judge was just tired of the whole dog-and-pony show and put an end to it. He wasn’t going to put a simple trafffic ticket on hold while the defendant went to play Perry Mason. I would think the simple advice from the judge is - “go get a new letter from a live doctor, get it notarized. that will take care of future cases. And for now, pay the ******* fine.”
But it might have been necessary to produce the doctor for reasons other than simply to testify that he wrote the letter and get it into evidence - off the top of my head, maybe the letter and the doctor’s records just say that the defendant can’t wear a seat belt due to an unspecified medical condition and state law requires that there be a specific medical condition associated with the exemption , so that even getting the letter into evidence wouldn’t matter.
How would the judge know without reading the letter first? And then isn’t it up to the city attorney to object?
All I can say is that the doctor wasn’t needed to get the letter into evidence there are other ways . Maybe there was another reason (like the one I suggested) or maybe the judge somehow knew the contents of the letter ( I wasn’t there - did anyone mention what it said?) or maybe the judge just wasn’t inclined to give the defendant time to get the evidence he should have already had with him. Or maybe he didn’t really mean the doctor was needed - someone would have been needed and if the doctor died you certainly wouldn’t be able to get his records and a member of his staff in 15 minutes. Traffic proceedings can be very informal - I saw one once where the defendant wanted to introduce his cell phone records to prove he wasn’t on the phone while driving. He changed his plea when the prosecutor reminded him that it’s not illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving - it’s illegal to “use” a phone and “use” is defined as including holding it near your ear so the phone records wouldn’t matter.
I’m gonna guess - he told the judge “I have a letter from my doctor saying I don’t need a seatbelt” and the judge simply was tired of people coming up with excuses - often bogus - why they were special and did not need to follow the law, so decided to be strict. I suspect if it were more serious, there would have been closer scrutiny.
I was in traffic court once where the guy had a speeding ticket, and tried the “I had a friend drive beside me so I could calibrate the speedometer and found it underreports the speed.” Judge simply said “making sure your car is working properly is your responsibilty. Pay the fine.” Most I saw someone get away with was “OK, pay the fine, no points on your record.” I bet the worst job is traffic judge, who gets to hear endless creative excuses.
(I had a friend who bought an old rusty truck years ago - we went on a road trip. “Wow, making good time!” until we stopped for gas, realized that “75mph” was actually 60mph, the previous owner had probably traded rims.)
The problem is not that the doctor is dead, the problem is that the letter is hearsay. The hearsay rule says (subject to a whole lot of exceptions) that you can’t use an out of court statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The guy wanted to prove he couldn’t wear a seatbelt for medical reasons. Assuming that’s even a thing, you’d have to prove it with a witness.
However, if the state law said “you don’t have to wear a seatbelt if you have a letter from a doctor saying you can’t wear one,” then the letter isn’t being introduced to prove the truth of what is in the letter, but simply to prove the defendant had the letter required by the law.
The letter is a business record and can be admitted into evidence via the testimony of the medical practice’s records custodian. But you’d have to get that deposition before the hearing or have the custodian appear at the hearing to testify.
State laws are generally very specific about what is needed to prove a will. Witness attestations are common, but usually two are needed. And then there are always notaries.
Some states recognize holographic wills (“I leave everything to Steve” with no witness signature or notary seal, etc., but that may cause authentication problems.)