Study Of Email Evidence Admissibility Rules

Along with the development of science and technology,electronic Evidence ismore and more wide in practical applications.But our law is lagging behind,There isno corresponding electronic evidence applicable rules. In august2013,the new civilprocedure law is promulgated.Electronic evidence is kind of independent evidence,isunlike traditional evidence,but there is no corresponding applicable rules and the lawsoil of adjust to its development.In practice,the collection presentation admissiblerules of electronic evidence is deferent,this is not conducive to correct referee andunified law, the reality urgent need to establish the electronic evidence admissibilityrules.The first part of this article is the basic situation of the case.Brief introducethe case and the evidence,analyzes the focus of the case：the e-mail evidence of thecase whether has legitimacy、authenticity、relevance and probative the size of thee-mail evidence probative force.Through analyzing the case, find the Problems andsolutions of the e-mail in practice applicable，Investigate the e-mail applicable rules.The second part of this article is analysis of the relevant jurisprudence. Thelegitimate form of the email evidence include printed matter、notarized form、identification form、presentation in court、internet service providers provide the firstdata. The probative force of evidence is different, collected in different ways.Probative force of printed matter form is minimal, Probative force of identificationform and the email provided by network service provider is maximum. Email formingenvironment is virtual, so judgment of email evidence authenticity is different fromtraditional evidence. Include content whether is true and identity whether is true. First,email evidence authenticity need judge the owner of e-mail, when the owner of e-mailis not recipient of the message, need judge recipient of the message. Finally need tojudge email content whether is complete in formation、transmission and store. Emailis virtual and vulnerability, the judiciary is hard to judge email authenticity from frontside, so need to establish presumption of authenticity, identify email authenticity fromthe ways. Relevance of evidence determines probative force of the evidence. Judiciary can judge probative force of the evidence thought the degree of closeness between theevidence and the facts.The third part of the article is the case analysis. The email evidence exceedthe time limit for adducing evidence, but the author think judiciary should tissuecross-examination and adopt. Court demonstrates email should submit an applicationto the court before the time limit for adducing evidence. Court demonstrates email isLegitimate forms of evidence and isn’t the scope of illegal evidence exclusion, so it’slegitimate. Though email submitted have no logical link with facts to be proved fromthe surface, the email is related with facts to be proved from the deep respect.The fourth part of the article is inspiration of the case. The inspiration of thecase is elaborated from extraction、testimony、authenticate of email evidence. Theextraction of email evidence includes litigant extracting evidence、lawyers extractingevidence and judge extracting evidence. Presentation in court is the best choice of theparties. The lawyer must work to ready before investigating and extracting evidence;fully extract evidence in evidence extraction process, including headers of email andall of emails linked; cant neglect the other evidences collection, with the emailevidence forming a chain of evidence. The judge extraction of evidence is mainlyfrom raw data of network service provider provide，should strictly follow the legalprocedures in extraction process, don’t divulge thus obtained commercial secrets andpersonal privacy. In the course of cross-examination of evidence, litigant can applyexpert assistant to explain and question the email evidence. In the e-mail evidenceauthentication process, the judge must consider whether the e-mail is original, theoriginal email evidence includes raw data provided by network service provider, courtdemonstrates email, notarized identified email. Excluded the emails that obtained inillegally recorded stolen way, in illegal invasion of another’s computer way, in stateinstitutions violation of legal procedures way.