Mortarman, in a recent post, you said personally procured evidence of infidelity is not admissible (at least in Virginia) in court, but that it might be admissible as impeachment evidence. I’m trying to educate myself on that subject but I can’t find anything with a Google search, I assume because I haven’t been able to craft the magic search string that would reveal the information I know must be there. Can you point me toward an article that discusses this subject?

I’m a little confused because I distinctly recall a TV show some years ago that chronicled the use of camcorders to document ordinary criminal acts. I actually saw an episode of “Real TV” on the Spike channel the other night where an individual went around his city videotaping hookers, etc., and even caught two kidnapping attempts on tape. The tapes were used in court to convict.

I also don’t understand why evidence collected by the BS wouldn’t be admissible but evidence presented by a PI would be. So long as the evidence could be validated (as not having been altered, etc.), a problem that would exist with both sources, I’m at a loss to understand (Virginia’s) position on that.

I would sincerely appreciate any websites/articles/etc. that you can point me at.

Anyone else want to throw something in?

I'd like to have Mr W. respond also - specifically regarding these issues in Michigan.

Bump for Mortarman

I am not a litigator. Mostly I spend my time doing estate planning, real estate law and general business consulting. So I don't know the specific answer to this question. But I'll try:

Tape recordings of others conversation I believe are hearsay. Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. A statement is not hearsay if---

(1) Prior Statement of witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (A)inconsistnet with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, .....

(2) Admission by party-opponent - the person being recorded can admit it if they feel it helps there case.

Otherwise, hearsay is not admissable except as provided by the exception rules of each state:

Pertinent Michigan Hearsay Exceptions:

* Recorded Recollection - a memorandum or record (journal) concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and acurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness's memory (always date your entries) and to reflect that knowledge correctly (if you get caught lying in your journal it could be thrown out). If admitted, the memo or record may be read into evidence but may not itself be received as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse party.

*Deposition or trial testimony of an expert

I don't have time to continue but think you can search your state by looking at it's HEARSAY rules. It is still convuluted even to me. A divorce attorney would know these rules off the cuff. I don't. I just seems to me what gets in the way is when you Tap phone conversations. Since it's illegal in almost every state if you are not a party to the phone call then I can see it not being admissable. As far as a recording by hidden recorder in the house catching only one side of a phone conversation I can see admissability be arguable. However, I think a recording of the interactions of husband and wife say on D-Day and thereafter would likely be admissable. Then again, maybe the expectation of privacy in your home precludes that and having the Private Eye get the evidence and give expert testimony is the best. But notice, it is no longer hearsay if you use it to impeach the witnesses testimony. So if a spouse gets in the deposition or trial and flat out lies then in come the tapes to refut it. Once they find out you have the recordings then I doubt they will lie and you'll be set.

Mr. Wondering

Thank you sir.

I can see where phone tap conversations probably couldn't ever be used. In Texas, for instance, it's legal only if one of the parties to the conversation is aware of the recording. But what about such things as a spouse videotaping the other party in the marriage engaging in "inappropriate behavior" (a) inside the home, and (b) in a public setting where I would think they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, (c) entering/leaving OM's dwelling or a motel room, etc.

I've found a Florida decision that keylogging can't be used in court, so that's probably out in most states also.

I'm not really so interested in whether intercepts of electronic transmissions can be used in court. It's really the question of why Private Investigator-gathered evidence (videotape, photographs, etc.) would be admissible but information gathered by the spouse would not be. Put another way, if electronic intercepts are not usable when done by spouses...does that not also hold for PIs?

Mr. Wondering is correct.

Let me give you a different example though.

If I tape my wife's conversations with another, it is hearsay. If I tape those conversations in my bedroom, they are hearsay.

But if I set up a camera in my bedroom with no audio, and I catch them doing the dirty deed...that is admissable evidence.

Hearsay is as Mr. W said above. It cant be used to prove adultery...but it can be used to prove perjury. That is, as long as you didnt break the law while trying to tape her.

In His arms.

Mortarman and Longhorn will you meet me at my thread? I have a question about AF assignments.

It's probably useless, at this point, to convince the American public that Clinton's impeachment was not about adultery. It was not even, really, about sex or lying -- but I'll try.

It was about the right to a fair trial.

Paula Jones may have been supported by right-wing money, she may have been trailer-park trash, but under American law she was entitled to a fair trial with witnesses who weren't paid off or offered prestigious jobs for their perjury or silence.

Paula Jones's testimony about sexual harrassment was borne out by some of the paid-off witnesses -- such as Monica Lewinsky.

The reason for the personal questions was not to titillate the American public -- but rather, that Paula Jones's charges concerned sexual harrassment, and were therefore of a personal nature.

That said, no one died when Clinton lied.