You are technically correct, e-mails aren’t judicially approved. They are hearsay, a statement made outside of court. They absolutely can be used as evidence. Lionel Hutz was on the money when he said that ‘hearsay is a kind of evidence’. Depending on the hearsay it can be quite strong evidence. That evidence can be used to make a testimony and that is judicially approved. There is strong hearsay, such as a series of emails which details the crime, and there is weak hearsay, like ‘everyone knows Joe did it’. One of those examples of hearsay you can take to court, the other, well you can take what everyone is saying to court but it won’t get you very far.
What do you mean by that? If you received an email, you are the witness that testifies about the email when it’s introduced as evidence. Generally also not covered by hearsay when it’s directly the issue of the entire case.
The situation isn’t that different in Germany: emails can be used as evidence in court, though they aren’t as strong as evidence as say: a signed letter. There is also the issue with proving that an email actually arrived, but i would assume that in this case that is already covered.
there are cryptographic signatures on almost all mails sent by large mail providers these days, which makes it very hard to just forge an email that will hold up to closer examination with the help of the provider. so basically the IT techs of the company would need to be on board with whatever the perpetrator is doing, for them to get away with it.
Very definitely not, emails (and texts and a bunch of other electronic comms) are discoverable as evidence and routinely used to bury people under the jail
Nitpicking, but, e-mail aren’t judicially approved, just so you know.
edit: i think this was in german IT legal stuff where i read that?
You are technically correct, e-mails aren’t judicially approved. They are hearsay, a statement made outside of court. They absolutely can be used as evidence. Lionel Hutz was on the money when he said that ‘hearsay is a kind of evidence’. Depending on the hearsay it can be quite strong evidence. That evidence can be used to make a testimony and that is judicially approved. There is strong hearsay, such as a series of emails which details the crime, and there is weak hearsay, like ‘everyone knows Joe did it’. One of those examples of hearsay you can take to court, the other, well you can take what everyone is saying to court but it won’t get you very far.
Found Legal Eagle’s Lemmy Account?
What do you mean by that? If you received an email, you are the witness that testifies about the email when it’s introduced as evidence. Generally also not covered by hearsay when it’s directly the issue of the entire case.
Is that an American thing?
Guess i read that in german IT news?
The situation isn’t that different in Germany: emails can be used as evidence in court, though they aren’t as strong as evidence as say: a signed letter. There is also the issue with proving that an email actually arrived, but i would assume that in this case that is already covered.
No, it was because sender can be easily forged, etc. Or was it swiss? Anyway.
senders can only be easily forged if you control the senders mail server or if they don’t use best practices for running a mail server.
See also:
there are cryptographic signatures on almost all mails sent by large mail providers these days, which makes it very hard to just forge an email that will hold up to closer examination with the help of the provider. so basically the IT techs of the company would need to be on board with whatever the perpetrator is doing, for them to get away with it.
Very definitely not, emails (and texts and a bunch of other electronic comms) are discoverable as evidence and routinely used to bury people under the jail
What do you mean?