Presenting email evidence in small claims: how?

[Ohiogal]

latigo is an attorney. He tends to know the rules.

Latigo may have passed the bar but from my understanding Latigo doesn't actually practice law.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I have been reading online that small claims hearing are often only about 15 minutes long. I'm think my case could require significantly more time, like an hour or even two, if only because of the evidence that needs to be presented. Is there a significant likelihood of getting cut off, or do the judges usually adapt to the case at hand and let the particulars of the case dictate the duration?

If it matters I am filing for the maximum amount of damages permissible.

Thanks all!

The only time I've ever seen a judge cut off a plaintiff or defendant in a small claims case is when they start repeating themselves or start talking about things that have no relevance to the case. And one of these two can happen pretty often.

 

[quincy]

Latigo may have passed the bar but from my understanding Latigo doesn't actually practice law.

That could be.

There is certainly a difference between what you learn in school and applying what you've learned.

 

[Zigner]

I have been reading online that small claims hearing are often only about 15 minutes long. I'm think my case could require significantly more time, like an hour or even two, if only because of the evidence that needs to be presented. Is there a significant likelihood of getting cut off, or do the judges usually adapt to the case at hand and let the particulars of the case dictate the duration?

If it matters I am filing for the maximum amount of damages permissible.

Thanks all!

If you can't distill your case down to a manageable time-frame, then small claims may not be the court you want to be in.

 

[quincy]

I have been reading online that small claims hearing are often only about 15 minutes long. I'm think my case could require significantly more time, like an hour or even two, if only because of the evidence that needs to be presented. Is there a significant likelihood of getting cut off, or do the judges usually adapt to the case at hand and let the particulars of the case dictate the duration?

If it matters I am filing for the maximum amount of damages permissible.

Thanks all!

Small claims cases tend to be simple cases that are presented and heard quickly. Evidence tends to be minimal and there is often no witness testimony.

There are a lot of cases on the docket that the judge expects to hear. I have seen judges get impatient and a bit testy with parties who elaborate unnecessarily and stray off topic. Don't waste the judge's time.

It is best for you to prepare well by organizing your facts and evidence in a way that maximizes the time you have. Rehearse what you plan to say. Time yourself. In other words, you should approach your case like you would any other presentation. Flash cards with bullet points can help you hit all of your major arguments and keep you on track. You should label all of your evidence so you are not fumbling around trying to find your support documents. And it helps to know what the other party will be arguing so you can address these arguments in your own presentation.

In court, it will be much like going back to debate class in high school.

If you look and act like a professional, you should do fine.

Good luck.

 

[not2cleverRed]

I have been reading online that small claims hearing are often only about 15 minutes long. I'm think my case could require significantly more time, like an hour or even two, if only because of the evidence that needs to be presented. Is there a significant likelihood of getting cut off, or do the judges usually adapt to the case at hand and let the particulars of the case dictate the duration?

If it matters I am filing for the maximum amount of damages permissible.

Thanks all!

I am not a lawyer, but if I were you, I'd reduce my presentation down to the "bullet points" - your strongest (legally relevant) statements regarding your case, and have the stack of documents organized and ready to present as time permits or if interest shown. That way, you are more likely to voice your main points before getting cut off. Think of how you would do an old fashioned power point/slide presentation. You wouldn't have 100 slides for a 10 minute presentation!

 

[quincy]

I agree that the documents should be used as needed only, to support what is said if a question arises as to the veracity.

 

[latigo]

I agree that the documents should be used as needed only, to support what is said if a question arises as to the veracity.

The "veracity" of what is "said" in these forums is reflected in the court's decision when it is too bloody late to offer corroborating documentation!

Me thinketh that in under trying a case that you have over philosophized.

 

[quincy]

The "veracity" of what is "said" in these forums is reflected in the court's decision when it is too bloody late to offer corroborating documentation!

Me thinketh that in under trying a case that you have over philosophized.

My pomposity showing a bit is it, huh, latigo? I do so like to philosophize.

Rebuttal is allowed and the documents can be presented to support the facts as necessary at that time.

But it is the plaintiff's choice. Evidence can be presented either way.

 

[kolabok]

I read it! /informative

When I digested this (, the evidence) for text messaging by the defendant as per ported by the officer as actual fact. The first thing I thought, Was the officer an expert on texting forensics. I know it sounds absurd, but I am reminded of the trial against the Unabomber, were there was a possibility of him getting out on a technicality. The arresting officer in this case FBI, provided this new term called linguistic forensics as evidenced in the letters by Kaczynski. The agent had no formal training, degree or credentials to assert the facts of the evidence. I just see this being problematic if laws are not on the books for this to validate.
Say for example I have 3 people on my phone bill and as the responsible party for paying the bill, all 3 phones are in registered in my name even though two phones are with one or more people. How could one know unequivocally the phone is by virtue of the texts assigned to various recipients?

When latigo asks a question of members, I think it is often to see if THEY know what they are talking about. PayRollHRGuy is not an attorney so his research skills and claimed experiences are up for question.

But, yes, applying the law is different from knowing what the law says.

hbrooks7, small claims courts are still courts that must abide by the rules - as latigo earlier noted. But small claims courts have simplified procedures and the judges, while not abandoning the rules, relax them a bit for the non-attorney litigants. Pro se litigants in small claims courts are not held to the same standard that attorneys are.

In other words, authenticating documents in a small claims court rarely will require expert analysis and testimony. If you testify that emails or texts were sent by your defendant AND the defendant does not object to the introduction of the emails and texts as evidence or deny their legitimacy, the judge should accept them for what you say they are.

It is not a good idea to rely solely on email exchanges to support your case, however, unless you can SHOW CONVINCINGLY they come from the defendant.

Also, it is important for you to know YOUR court and judge. What someone else might have experienced has no true bearing on your own case. Your judge might be a stickler for rules as written. If you have the chance, sit in his court to get a feel for how he operates.

Read what I provided earlier for you in the links. The case I cited has a discussion that is informative.

 

[quincy]

I read it! /informative

When I digested this (, the evidence) for text messaging by the defendant as per ported by the officer as actual fact. The first thing I thought, Was the officer an expert on texting forensics. I know it sounds absurd, but I am reminded of the trial against the Unabomber, were there was a possibility of him getting out on a technicality. The arresting officer in this case FBI, provided this new term called linguistic forensics as evidenced in the letters by Kaczynski. The agent had no formal training, degree or credentials to assert the facts of the evidence. I just see this being problematic if laws are not on the books for this to validate.
Say for example I have 3 people on my phone bill and as the responsible party for paying the bill, all 3 phones are in registered in my name even though two phones are with one or more people. How could one know unequivocally the phone is by virtue of the texts assigned to various recipients?

Linguistic forensics has been taught for several years and is used in many cases to determine if writings come from the same source.

In cases involving illegal material (e.g., illegal downloads of copyrighted material, child pornography) that have been tracked to a single source like a phone or computer where several people have access, it can be a defense to a claim that there is more than one user.

 

[HRZ]

I ve sat thru or done a number of SC cases in PA ....rules are relaxed but still there, if other side chooses to bring them up....been zapped a few times by some tiny technical steps until I learned to pay attention ...full copy of rules of court sits beside my desk . Have it handy.

it's unlikely to tossed as hearsay if other side admits to sending or recieving it....

OP if you cannot reduce it to 15 minutes on your side you risk losing judges attention .

I agree...copies ready to go and highlighted... But get to point quickly

THe rules for appeal in PA are very easy..and it's de novo into County Court ....anticipate you may be headed there.


( Only once was one of my SC cases long...other side used counsel and counsel put on a big long long show most likely to impress client ...but judges attention span was taxed and that side lost )

 

[quincy]

... it's unlikely to tossed as hearsay if other side admits to sending or recieving it....

Uh ... if a defendant admits that texts or emails were sent by him, that is about as good as it gets with authenticating the source.

( Only once was one of my SC cases long...other side used counsel and counsel put on a big long long show most likely to impress client ...but judges attention span was taxed and that side lost )

I strongly suspect the other side lost for reasons that had nothing at all to do with the "judge's attention span."

 

[latigo]

That could be.

There is certainly a difference between what you learn in school and applying what you've learned.

That could be? Well it could be and it is most likely true for OG and perhaps some of her fellow "offices workers". But it is not so in my case, Quincy! I was engaged in the private practice of law for more than four decades; a good deal of it spent in the courtroom and law libraries. And unlike OG not once did I to go to the public trough for my bread and salt.

Furthermore, no one can survive in this business by applying only what is learned in law school! To do so would be a short cut to failure.

What law school does is to provide a brief, extremely brief, introduction to a very limited category of American Jurisprudence and disciplines the mind to think and grow. And I haven't stopped growing and learning since I first plunged into it in it at age one score and 6 months thinking I would never survive. * Its a labor of love and strangely I seem addicted. (To that and golf.)

Incidentally, Q. One thing about golf that differs from this site is that there are no phonies pretending to be proficient experts. Those that purport to be are quickly exposed once they step to the first tee.
____________


[*] That's right " Miss Chicken Little"! Age twenty and six month to the day! Long before you and your "office workers" were hatched.

 

[quincy]

That could be? Well it could be and it is most likely true for OG and perhaps some of her fellow "offices workers". But it is not so in my case, Quincy! I was engaged in the private practice of law for more than four decades; a good deal of it spent in the courtroom and law libraries. And unlike OG not once did I to go to the public trough for my bread and salt.

Furthermore, no one can survive in this business by applying only what is learned in law school! To do so would be a short cut to failure.

What law school does is to provide a brief, extremely brief, introduction to a very limited category of American Jurisprudence and disciplines the mind to think and grow. And I haven't stopped growing and learning since I first plunged into it in it at age one score and 6 months thinking I would never survive. * Its a labor of love and strangely I seem addicted. (To that and golf.)

Incidentally, Q. One thing about golf that differs from this site is that there are no phonies pretending to be proficient experts. Those that purport to be are quickly exposed once they step to the first tee.
____________


[*] That's right " Miss Chicken Little"! Age twenty and six month to the day! Long before you and your "office workers" were hatched.

Happy First-Plunged-Into-the-Field-of-Law Day, latigo.