Substantive Evidence

Example 1

During a robbery trial, the prosecution seeks to admit fingerprints taken from the crime scene that match those of the defendant. This is substantive evidence, as it shows that the defendant was at the scene during the robbery.

Example 2

During a bench trial for a breach of contract suit, the plaintiff seeks to prove the defendant’s alleged dishonesty by admitting into evidence audio recordings that show the defendant cheated on his wife. This is not substantive evidence, as it has no bearing on a material fact at issue in the case. The defendant’s fidelity to his wife isn’t at issue; his fidelity to the contract is.

Case Examples

• Definition: Courts have defined substantive evidence as evidence “offered to establish the truth of a matter to be determined by the trier of fact”. See, for example, Robert v. Maurice, No. CV 18-11632, 2021 WL 310359, at *3 (E.D. La. Jan. 28, 2021) (internal citations omitted). In Robert, the Defendant, Maurice, was being sued for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The Plaintiff sought to seal certain records, as he intended to use them only for impeachment purposes during the trial. The defendant objected to the sealing of the evidence, claiming it was substantive rather than impeachment evidence, as it could be used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The court agreed and found that the evidence could not be sealed, as it could be used as substantive evidence as well as for impeachment purposes. Id..
• Habeas corpus: Although a witness's prior inconsistent statements are not generally admissible, his responses when confronted with those statements can be admissible as substantive evidence. See Pickron v. Jacobs, 622 F. Supp. 109, 116 (E.D. Pa. 1985), aff'd, 817 F.2d 752 (3d Cir. 1987). In Pickeron, an inmate who had been previously convicted of robbery filed a writ of habeas corpus. Id.. In the writ of habeas corpus, the inmate claimed that the eyewitness testimony used to convict him was not reliable because the eyewitness had made conflicting statements about the robbers' identities. The court disagreed and denied his writ of habeas corpus, finding the eyewitness's identification of the inmate as one of the people who robbed him was in response to the witness’s previous inconsistent statements. Id.. Therefore, the identification could be admitted as substantive evidence. Id..