Chapter 1 - § 1.1 • INTRODUCTION

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 1.1 • INTRODUCTION

The introduction of evidence is a fundamental trial skill. It is the means by which an attorney is able to present his or her client's case to the jury. Mastering the introduction of evidence requires an understanding of the procedural rules and foundational requirements for the admissibility of various types of evidence. Truly effective trial practice, however, requires more than strict adherence to formal procedures. It takes thoughtfulness and creativity to present your evidence in a way that will best educate the jury as to your client's case. Preparation is paramount.

While live testimony is the most common type of evidence introduced at trial, evidence can take myriad forms. Each type of evidence presents its own unique challenges, both procedurally and logistically. The means by which you introduce evidence should be chosen carefully, with due consideration given to the message you are trying to send the jury and the most effective and interesting means for sending that message.

The admissibility of evidence is not something to be considered on the eve of trial. Because certain types of evidence have strict foundational and procedural requirements that require certain steps prior to trial, many of the decisions made during discovery will affect the types of evidence available at trial. Throughout the discovery process, you should be considering the types of evidence you will need to present at trial and planning for how you will meet the various foundational requirements. Often, this means crafting multiple paths for admission. An objection might be sustained on certain grounds and overruled on others. As the saying goes, if the front door is closed, try the back. The more well-thought-out bases you have for admission, the more likely you are to succeed. This is especially important for case-critical pieces of evidence.

§ 1.1.1—Approaching Evidence

The rules of evidence can seem esoteric and confusing when viewed in isolation. However, a pattern emerges when the overall purpose of the rules is kept in mind: to make sure that only relevant and reliable information is considered by the finder of fact. At its simplest, this means that all evidence must be relevant, authentic, reliable, and not overly prejudicial. These requirements are intended to promote efficiency and fair outcomes. Approaching evidentiary issues with this broader perspective in mind can often simplify even the most nuanced questions.

The first question is...