Incompetent evidence is evidence that is considered to be legally inadmissible in a court of law. It is evidence that, for various reasons, has been deemed to be not of value in determining matters of fact or influencing a court’s decision. Incompetent evidence is generally not permissible to be admitted as evidence in any court proceeding.
What Types of Evidence are Considered Incompetent?
Examples of incompetent evidence include: hearsay, double hearsay, opinion evidence, evidence that has been illegally obtained, irrelevant evidence, and evidence that is prejudicial to a party. Anything that is not legally admissible in a court of law can be considered to be an incompetent form of evidence.
Why Is Incompetent Evidence Important?
Incompetent evidence is important because its exclusion ensures that defendants receive a fair trial and that court proceedings remain impartial and impartiality is a cornerstone of the justice system. Courts rely on relevant and legally admissible evidence when making decisions and the exclusion of incompetent evidence ensures that only legally admissible evidence is used. This prevents legal decisions from being made on the basis of prejudicial and/or incorrect evidence.
Conclusion:
Incompetent evidence is any form of evidence that is legally inadmissible in a court of law. It is important to understand the types of evidence that is considered to be incompetent in order to ensure that a court can make its decisions based on relevant and legally admissible evidence which upholds the cornerstone of impartiality in the justice system.