A Question about US courts from a foreigner blinded by fiction

I've seen it on various shows, but is "surprise evidence" actually accepted in court in the States?

Is it actually legal to listen to a witness's testimony, reach into the back of your pants, and say "Ha-ah! I've got this thumb drive which proves everything you just said is bullshit!"

I know that in real life France, out Law teacher insisted that it would only get your thumb drive rejected: All evidence must be presented and filed to both sides before the audience.

I don't think that would fly anywhere.

"Surprise evidence" usually only happens or is admitted in the case of ongoing investigation that hasn't concluded prior to trial. Most of the time it's time-consuming evidence work like DNA testing.

Other than that, all evidence must be presented before the trial. (Triply true in the cases of grand jury indictments.)

edited 12th May '11 8:16:12 AM by MajorTom

What has already been said. In fiction the point is to find the answer to a mystery. In real life the trial is to decide guilt or innocence based on accumulated evidence. Anything that comes to light after the trial has started can wait for appeals.

Yup, in real life courts you have to present all of the evidence beforehand, but if that held true in Ace Attorney games, no one would play them :P

Shouldn't time normally be allowed prior to trial to allow things like DNA sampling to always be carried out? Sounds like a major contributing factor to the number of wrongful convictions in the US if you ask me.

^ The court systems actually try and account for things like that. It's why when you have things like rape cases or murder cases (doubly if they make the news) the dates set for trials is often many months if not more than a year later than the time of arrest.

Most of the time it's just done that way for the sake of drama. But it depends on the exact laws of evidence of the location, and who is doing it and why. For example, introducing evidence to contradict the testimony of a witness, well, that will be allowed.

Usually you don't have the same person being the investigator, prosecutor, and forensic scientist all at once either.

But can they be Judge, Jury and Executioner?

Physical evidence, no. But a witness probably has no idea as to the entirety of the evidence being used in the case, they are simply being asked for their point of view. There could be a piece of evidence that was submitted prior to the hearing that the witness isn't aware of, forgot about, or simply contradicted. So if Medinoc is providing an alibi for where I was on the night Love Happiness died, and the prosecution asks him a question and he says we were drinking coffee at a cafe then he could go

"Medinoc, do you have your debit card on you?"

"Yes, I do."

"Is this the only debit card you use?"

"Yes, it is."

"Please show it to the court."

-Medinoc waves around his debit card-

"Do you ever pay for things in cash?"

"No, I do not."

"WELL THEN, EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THERE ARE CHARGES ON THE DEBIT CARD YOU HOLD IN YOUR HAND AT THIS VERY MOMENT AT Mc SNUFFEYS, 3 BLOCKS FROM THE SCENE OF THE CRIME, HALF AN HOUR AFTER THE CRIME WAS COMMITED! AND SECURITY CAMERA FOOTAGE OF YOU AND BARKEY AT THE COUNTER!"

Lots of it depends on how good your lawyer is, a good lawyer essentially knows the best possible path that the prosecution is going to take, and has a defense ready for all those eventualities. He has to essentially think several moves ahead of the prosecution as a defense attorney, just as the prosecution has to either have evidence that is so rock-solid that it can't be dismissed, a way to spin bullshit into looking like rock-solid evidence when it is in fact rather shaky, and figuring out if there are any eventualities that the defense might not have a prepared and canned response to. It's sort of like a big mental chess game between lawyers and circumstance, where the stake in it is a prison sentence for someone else.

Edit: Also, what Blueharp said about rules varying, I'm passingly familiar with civilian law from the cop perspective, but military law is more my specialty.

Note: Yelling out that the prosecution "can't handle the truth" at any point in the proceedings? Bad idea.

edited 12th May '11 2:40:20 PM by Barkey

On the other hand, inviting some totally random Air Force guys to come into the court room...completely legit.

I think they were Air force, I can't say I've watched the movie in years, they could have been wearing Swiss Guard uniforms for all I remember.

The rules regarding what's called "discovery" are quite clearly drawn. For instance, here are the Washington State rules. You'll note that it goes both ways — neither side is supposed to hide things that they know from the other side — there's a list of things the prosecutors have to disclose to the defense, and another list that the defense is supposed to disclose or provide to the prosecutors.

New evidence can be introduced during trial in certain circumstances, but generally only if it was not available earlier, and it must be shown to the judge for approval and to the opposing counsel, and a recess to examine the new evidence is generally granted.

I don't remember, it's been way too long since I've seen that movie as well. Might have been navy in dress blues.

I think it is mentioned on You Fail Law Forever.

As a rule, you have to share your principal evidence with the other side if they ask for it. In criminal cases, both sides have a list of things they have to automatically disclose. In civil matters, you usually only have to disclose evidence if the other side asks for it. Of course, every decent lawyer will ask for absolutely everything that you may have.

About the only thing that could qualify as "surprise evidence" is rebuttal evidence; i.e. evidence whose only purpose is to refute or rebut the other side's testimony. It's generally allowed because it ordinarily wouldn't come in at all, but for the fact that the other side "opened the door", and the evidence becomes relevant because of that. Also, the reasoning goes, a decent lawyer should already be aware of the holes in his own case, so there's no real "surprise" after all.

For example, in a criminal case, a witness could come forward to say that he saw the Defendant committing the crime. The defense could then put somebody on who says that the witness was with him at the time the crime was committed, so the witness couldn't have seen the crime. Ordinarily that defense witness wouldn't be allowed to testify, but because his testimony specifically refutes a previous witness, he would be.

As far as bringing in the two airmen in A Few Good Men, neither of them were actually called to the stand, and Kaffee wasn't going to call them at all. Remember, that whole thing was a bluff to trip up Jessup. It's not against the rules to have somebody sit in the back of the courtroom.

Thanks for your answers.

I just want to say that although in the English version, the Ace Attorney series takes place in the US, the original Japanese version takes place in Japan and is based on the Japanese legal system, although there are differences for the sake of the gameplay and story.