Ask Me Help Desk - Email admissibility

I was in Court yesterday (part of work) when a Judge refused to admit emails as evidence in a matrimonial action. The reasoning was that there was no proof (even though the emails had gone back and forth, acknowledging a debt and an agreement) that the parties to the action were the parties to the emails.

One of the Attorneys offered to bring his client's computer into Court so the hard drive could be examined but was denied. A fairly substantial dollar amount was involved. The Judge went on to say that he will not accept emails and text messages in Small Claims Court (where, as far as I know, he never sits, so that statement was for effect only). For whatever reason I felt the Judge was posturing and it was his way or the highway - but he held fast.

It's been my experience that emails ARE evidence, and I've seen it in the past. I've advised people here on AMHD that emails are admissible in lower Courts and superior courts.

Anyone have any experience with anything like this? I cannot find any law. The Attorneys were scrambling, but I won't be back in that Courtroom so I'll never know - !

Emails can be fairly well faked now adays, almost like we can edit posts people put here.

And since the emails can be sent from cell phones, other computers, just one computer may not show you anything from being checked. Unless both sides accept the emails as facts I am surprised they are used and accepted as much as they are.

I have not personally seen emails used, but I can understand this judges stance.
I will assume one attorney objected ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

... The reasoning was that there was no proof (even though the emails had gone back and forth, acknowledging a debt and an agreement) that the parties to the action were the parties to the emails. ...

A writing on paper, signed by a party, can be impeached by the party's testimony that he/she didn't write it. Then it comes down to forensic evidence as to whether the writing is genuine.

E-mails can be proven in much the same way. The judge was simply being lazy, ignorant, or both. Some judges seem to think they are God, and those judges don't belong on the bench any more. He might be overturned on appeal, but he knows that the likelihood of prevailing on appeal is slight. The general rule is that the trial judge is given great latitude in questions of admitting evidence.