Evidence in Michigan Courts: Michigan’s Evidence Rules 1001-1008

KOMORN LAW

STATE and FEDERAL
Aggressive Legal Defense
All Criminal Allegations / DUI / Drugs
Since 1993

Michigan’s Rules of Evidence, established by the Supreme Court, dictate how evidence is presented and admitted in court proceedings. Rules 1001 through 1008, focusing on how written words, recordings, and photographs are treated as evidence.

Rule 1001: Defining the Terms

Before diving into details, Rule 1001 lays the groundwork by defining key terms:

    • Writing: Any combination of letters, words, numbers, or their equivalent, regardless of format (handwritten, digital, etc.).
    • Recording: Similar to writing, but encompassing sounds captured in any form (audio tapes, digital recordings, etc.).
    • Photograph: An image or its equivalent stored in any format (printed photographs, digital files, etc.).
  • Original: The primary version of a writing, recording, or photograph, or an authorized duplicate intended to have the same effect. For electronic information, a printout or other readable output that accurately reflects the data constitutes an original.

Rule 1002: The Quest for the Original

Generally, Rule 1002 emphasizes using the original document, recording, or photograph as evidence. This ensures authenticity and accuracy. However, exceptions exist:

    • Duplicates: If the original is unavailable or difficult to produce, a duplicate (exact copy) certified by the custodian of the original is admissible.
    • Voluminous Materials: For extensive records like business ledgers, summaries or compilations prepared by a qualified witness using the original are acceptable.
    • Lost or Destroyed Originals: Proof of loss or destruction, coupled with secondary evidence like copies or witness testimony, might allow entry of non-originals.

Rule 1003: Duplicates Step Up in Absence of Originals

When the original is unavailable and exceptions in Rule 1002 don’t apply, certified duplicates take center stage under Rule 1003. However, the opposing party has the right to challenge the authenticity of the duplicate.

Have your rights been violated?
Have your driving priviledges been revoked?
Has your professional license been suspended?
Second Amendment rights taken away?
Have you been charged with a crime?

Call our office to see if we can help
Komorn Law  248-357-2550

Rule 1004: When Copies Don’t Cut It

If neither the original nor a certified duplicate are available, Rule 1004 allows “other evidence of contents.” This could include oral testimony about the contents, copies not certified by the custodian, or even handwritten notes summarizing the original. However, such evidence faces a higher bar for admissibility due to concerns about accuracy and trustworthiness.

Rule 1005: Public Documents Take a Shortcut

For publicly available documents like government records, certified copies readily obtainable from the custodian bypass the original requirement under Rule 1005.

Rule 1006: Summaries of voluminous records get a green light

Rule 1006 reiterates the allowance for summaries of voluminous records if the original would be cumbersome to present. Here, the summary must be prepared by a qualified witness accurately reflecting the original’s substance.

Rule 1007: Parties Can Speak for Their Words

Rule 1007 empowers parties in a case to testify about the contents of their own writings, recordings, or photographs. This helps clarify ambiguities or resolve questions about intent.

Rule 1008: Judge and Jury Take Their Roles

Finally, Rule 1008 clarifies how judges and juries handle certain issues:

    • The judge decides whether certain conditions are met for admitting evidence of contents under these rules.
    • The jury decides if the writing ever existed, if a presented document is the original, or if secondary evidence accurately reflects the content.

These eight rules form the foundation for handling written, recorded, and photographic evidence in Michigan courts. Remember, this is just a summary; actual legal proceedings should involve consulting legal professionals for accurate interpretation and application of these rules.

Komorn Law Established 1993

Important:

This article provides a simplified overview of the Michigan Rules of Evidence for informational purposes only. It should not be interpreted as legal advice. When facing legal matters, always consult with a qualified attorney for professional guidance.

The Michigan Rules of Evidence are subject to change over time. Always consult the latest official version for accurate information.

Here is the link to the Michigan Rules of Evidence Handbook. Check the footer for the latest update.

Here is the link to proposed changes Michigan Court Website

 

Related Articles (see more posts after)

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

More Posts

Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests

Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests

Facial RecognitionHow Technology Can Lead to Mistaken-Identity Arrests Facial recognition technology has become increasingly prevalent in law enforcement, but its use raises critical questions about civil liberties and accuracy. One landmark case sheds light on the...

read more
People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights

People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights

Court of Appeals of Michigan PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javarian CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 368736 Decided: June 27, 2024Before: Borrello, P.J., and Swartzle and Young, JJ. Introduction In the People v. Chandler case, the Michigan...

read more
Chinese-funded marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.

Chinese-funded marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.

Inside the Chinese-funded and staffed marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.During a farm inspection, New Mexico state special agents discovered an excessive number of cannabis plants in violation of state laws. Subsequent visits revealed dozens of underfed and...

read more
Seattle settles case involving – the rights of nature

Seattle settles case involving – the rights of nature

The Rights of NatureSeattle settled a lawsuit brought by the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe on behalf of salmon harmed by dams on the Skagit River. This is one of the first "rights of nature" cases in the US, and the tribe argued that the lack of fish passage measures violated...

read more
NY judge fines unlicensed cannabis shops $15 million

NY judge fines unlicensed cannabis shops $15 million

It's their corner now“This punishment should serve as a clear warning for all unlicensed cannabis stores in the state: we will enforce the law and shut down your operations,” state Attorney General Letitia James saidThe owner of seven unlicensed cannabis shops in New...

read more
When Cannabis Businesses Are No Longer Subject to IRS 280E

When Cannabis Businesses Are No Longer Subject to IRS 280E

IRS 280E and Cannabis BusinessesWhat is IRS Section 280E? Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code restricts businesses from deducting typical business expenses from their gross income related to the distribution of Schedule I or II substances per the Controlled...

read more
Michael Komorn-Criminal Defense Attorney

About Your Attorney

Attorney Michael Komorn

Categories

Other Topics

Driving Under the Influence

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Michigan

Your Rights

Michigan Court of Appeals

Law Firm VIctories

Share This