Oral Evidence

Example

Sally testifies at a personal injury trial. Her testimony while on the stand becomes oral evidence in the case.

Case Examples

• Native American oral history: Courts have held that Native American oral history cannot be admitted into court to prove a point, as it is considered hearsay and must be admitted under another exception to the hearsay rule. See Pueblo of Jemez v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 3d 1234, 1238 (D.N.M. 2018). In Pueblo, Jemez Pueblo, a member of a Native American tribe, filed suit against the US government, claiming that he and his fellow tribe members had the exclusive right to occupy and use land that the United States government claimed was set aside for a national park. In order to support his claim, Jemez tried to introduce Native American oral tradition to establish that he and his tribe had a prior right to the land. The United States government objected to this oral history, claiming it was hearsay. The Court sided with the US government and found that the Native American oral tradition was hearsay because it had not been written down and was simply passed down from generation to generation. Therefore, the evidence that Jemenz was attempting to prove would have to be brought in another way under some other exception to the hearsay rule if he wanted the jury to hear it.
• Oral evidence in the Parol Evidence Rule context: Courts have found that a party may introduce oral evidence to further elucidate the parties' intent at the time of contract formation when the contract terms are vague or could have multiple meanings. See U.S. for Use & Ben. of Fed. Corp. v. Com. Mech. Contractors, Inc., 707 F.2d 1124, 1126 (10th Cir. 1982). In U.S., the Plaintiff appealed the lower court's decision, claiming that the judge erroneously allowed the other party to introduce oral evidence of the parties' conversations regarding contract formation, which the Plaintiff claimed conflicted with the terms of the contract. The Appeals Court disagreed, finding that the terms at issue in the lower court were unclear. Therefore, the lower court judge was well within his rights to admit the oral evidence, as it helped determine the intent of the parties.