🦅
Federal Evidence • Examination of Witness
EVID#004
Legal Definition
Lack of foundation refers to whether the witness is shown to have personal knowledge.
Plain English Explanation
Before a person can talk about something in court, they have to show that they know about it from their own experience or by being there. This is called having "personal knowledge" of something. If a person can't show that they have personal knowledge, they can't talk about it in court.
In other words, imagine you're telling a story about something you saw. If you were actually there and saw it with your own eyes, your story is more believable. That's what "foundation" is about in law. It means making sure a person who's giving evidence in court really knows what they're talking about because they saw or experienced it themselves. This rule is important because it keeps the court from hearing and using second-hand or made-up information. It's like making sure someone isn't just telling a friend's story or something they heard from someone else. The rule helps keep the evidence in court trustworthy and relevant to the case.
In other words, imagine you're telling a story about something you saw. If you were actually there and saw it with your own eyes, your story is more believable. That's what "foundation" is about in law. It means making sure a person who's giving evidence in court really knows what they're talking about because they saw or experienced it themselves. This rule is important because it keeps the court from hearing and using second-hand or made-up information. It's like making sure someone isn't just telling a friend's story or something they heard from someone else. The rule helps keep the evidence in court trustworthy and relevant to the case.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob is accused of breaking a window. Sam was present at the scene of the crime and saw Bob breaking the window. During the trial, Sam is called as a witness. Result: Sam would be able to testify in court about what they saw, because they have personal knowledge of the event.
Hypo 2: Bob is accused of stealing a toy from the toy store. Sam, who is an employee of the toy store, testifies that he saw Bob stealing the toy on the store's security camera footage that he watched. Result: This testimony would be considered valid, even though Sam didn't directly witness the incident himself, because he has personal knowledge of the event through the security footage.
Hypo 3: In a property dispute, Bob claims that a fence Sam built is on his land. Timmy, Bob's son, testifies that he saw Sam building the fence on their property. Result: Timmy's testimony has a proper foundation because he personally witnessed Sam building the fence.
Hypo 4: Bob sues Sam claiming Sam's dog damaged his garden. Bob calls a neighbor, Amy, to testify she saw Sam's dog in the garden. Amy, however, only heard this from her husband. Result: The court would not allow Amy's testimony because she does not have personal knowledge of the incident. She only heard about it, which doesn't meet the requirement of having firsthand experience.
Hypo 2: Bob is accused of stealing a toy from the toy store. Sam, who is an employee of the toy store, testifies that he saw Bob stealing the toy on the store's security camera footage that he watched. Result: This testimony would be considered valid, even though Sam didn't directly witness the incident himself, because he has personal knowledge of the event through the security footage.
Hypo 3: In a property dispute, Bob claims that a fence Sam built is on his land. Timmy, Bob's son, testifies that he saw Sam building the fence on their property. Result: Timmy's testimony has a proper foundation because he personally witnessed Sam building the fence.
Hypo 4: Bob sues Sam claiming Sam's dog damaged his garden. Bob calls a neighbor, Amy, to testify she saw Sam's dog in the garden. Amy, however, only heard this from her husband. Result: The court would not allow Amy's testimony because she does not have personal knowledge of the incident. She only heard about it, which doesn't meet the requirement of having firsthand experience.
