Unless you have lived under a rock the last few years, you know that a doctoral candidate has been charged with the deaths of four undergraduates at the University of Idaho. The news of the killings and the four victims, the witnesses, the evidence, and the legal machinations have produced innumerable news stories.
In fairness, it is not yet an OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, Menendez, Ted Bundy, or Salem Witch trial. But, it is early yet. The trial does not commence until at least August. The defendant is accused of four brutal murders that shocked and scarred Moscow, Idaho. The rules are interesting in Idaho, so the pretrial flow of information has been a bit constrained. Nonetheless, various court filings are being reported as trial approaches.
A recent one interesting to me was a motion "attacking key pieces of evidence." According to Fox 13 Seattle, a motion has been filed regarding surveillance video from a vantage point "a few hundred feet away from the crime scene." The defense team wants the evidence excluded on the grounds that the prosecutor:
"handed over the 12-hour-long raw video, and (the defendant's) lawyers don't have enough time to sort through it and examine the relevant parts."
The first reaction might be how can you not have 12 hours. But, the world of litigation is often a morass of competing priorities, responsibilities, and challenges. Some contend that the defense team has already been "looking through 'thousands' of hours of video." Thousands of hours is likely a significant commitment in any perspective. In addition, there is DNA evidence, documents, and more. In short, with any trial, there are various evidentiary responsibilities.
The recent video purportedly "shows a driver circling the (victim's) home multiple times."
There are only rare instances of such violence in workers' compensation. You may therefore wonder what this has to do with workers' compensation. The connection is in trial and the balancing of evidentiary requirements. There is always a burden on one party or the other to prove their case - the "burden of proof."
The "burden party" has to produce enough evidence to make their point "more likely than not" (or some increased burden defined by law). To do so, they must provide evidence. See If You are not Perry Mason, Bring Evidence (May 2013). From that premise, we devolve into what proves things (relevance), and how much is too much, both addressed in the Evidence Code.
But, there is rarely any objection to the "too much" evidence. Too often, we experience the "Cropduster" or the "carpet bomber" who comes to trial with reams of data and dumps it indiscriminately in the evidentiary record. This litigator hopes someone (the judge) will find their needle somewhere in that hayfield (it is rarely even a nice organized stack). See How do you Litigate? (March 2013).
Parties and attorneys frequently bring thousands of pages of medical records and other documents. They offer depositions in evidence with hundreds of pages of irrelevant, redundant, and distracting testimony. They ignore their ability and responsibility to sift this material and submit as evidence the portions that are relevant and pertinent to the dispute.
The point is efficiency. And that comes in a measured and limited quantity. Either party can take the time to sift through 500 pages of treatment notes and separate the 10 that are relevant. That takes time, time that is not available to review a deposition, write a trial memo, or prepare questions for a witness. Therefore, the party foregoes this and offers all 500 pages as evidence.
This does not avoid the time investment in searching for the relevant 10 pages. This merely shifts that inconvenience to the other party or the trial judge. The convenience or burden does not change, merely the responsibility. Those who submit vague and voluminous evidence are merely inconveniencing others.
This presents a risk of something being undervalued or unnoticed. The effective litigator knows that success is more likely through focus. They know that submitting only the 10 relevant pages will be more effective and efficient for the process and the judge. The true litigator hands the judge the needle, and makes their argument patent, clear, and even obvious. They know that volumes of evidence can be easily achieved, but will lack the overall import and effect.
The purpose of evidence is to persuade. The effort of persuasion is not benefited by overbreadth, redundancy, and confusion. Show me the needle, and make your point clear.
