Does a court have to accept evidence produced by another country if it becomes available during a trial? Let's say one trial in the U.S. starts after 1 year another country produces evidence that show that company A is not guilty. In both countries, a company B accused company A of something and used that company in both countries. Do U.S. court have to accept evidence produced by that country B even though it was produced in the middle of the trial? I keep seeing in movies that evidence must be vetted or listed before it takes place, so I am wondering if this is true or not.
Does a court have to accept evidence produced by another country if it becomes available during a trial?
For a Court it is not a matter of native or foreign evidence. For a Court it is whether the evidence is ‘admissible in law’ or ‘inadmissible in law’. There are Rules for deciding the whether something is really ‘evidence’.
Hence, for a Court first of all it must be an evidence (may be audio, visual, document, electronic document etc.). Then it must be admissible in law e.g. it must be the primary evidence i.e., the original piece of ‘evidence’. It must not be a copy i.e., the secondary evidence. Still, if it is secondary evidence then it must conform to a legal standard e.g. authenticated by some Government officer.
After the level of admissibility then the next level is reliability. Whether the evidence adduced by a party is reliable e.g. whether the will tendered in evidence is the latest will of the executant or not? If a piece of information, document, electronic document, audio or visual material produced in the Court satisfies these three conditions i.e.,
- Being an evidence
- Being admissible in law, and
- Reliable as per law and fact
Then that can be allowed by a Court. Its foreign origin does not vitiate its evidentiary value. I am sorry, I had not quoted the precise provisions of law in support of this answer. It is because I belong to a different jurisprudential system. Exact provisions may be different.