Can a trial judge refuse to admit evidence?

Question

can the trial judge refuse to admit evidence on the grounds of irrelevancy and the best evidence rule? this is my assignment topic and i don't know how to answer, i hope someone who knows the answer please help me by giving me any supporting cases for this question. thanks.

Answer 1

Of course they can.

Answer 2

This is one of the judge's main jobs - to decide which evidence is admissible and which is not.  Of course the judge can exclude evidence.

I can't give you a specific cite.  This issue comes up in every single case that gets litigated.  There is an entire Federal Rules of Evidence devoted to this very topic.

Answer 3

Judges commonly refuse to admit evidence.  If the evidence has no relevancy or for instance the evidence was obtained illegally, such as evidence obtained without a proper warrant or probable cause.  This is one of the main things that judges do in a trial is to determine admission of evidence.

  

Answer 4

Happens all of the time, especially in Hollywood.

Answer 5

When you say trial judge, you mean on a criminal case? No.

Really, no judge has the legal authority to refuse evidence on a trial. Evidence presented usually comes from the D.A. prosecution as proof that a crime has been committed. Defendant lawyers usually present evidence to try proving the accused is not the person responsible for the crime. A pre-trial hearing is conducted before an actual guilt/innocence trial so that both the D.A. prosecution and the defendant lawyer can present evidence to the court (judge) and both can make motions to suppress evidence. The judge hears the two sides and makes a ruling based on the legality of the motions to suppress the evidence. Legalities often are improper search and seizures, failure of proper evidence record keeping, statements made by the accused without the Miranda rights warning, irrelevancy, etc. But the judge himself does not and can not refuse evidence by his own personal opinion.