Inclusion of evidence obtained by fraud in a monetary trial
Hello Rabbi,
I recently came across an article that says this:
A woman who hacked into her ex-husband’s email was shocked to discover that their fortune was estimated at $100 million. The court was not impressed – and it rejected the documents she presented.
Do you think it is right to exclude evidence obtained by fraud in a financial dispute? I thought it was not that different from the rule that a man is his own judge, and therefore the evidence should be accepted as long as it is true, even if it was obtained by fraud. What do you think?
This is the doctrine of the fruit of the poisoned tree. It has justification in terms of a general view of the system and not this particular case. Even if it is not justified here, but in terms of its impact on the entire system, it may be justified.
Making one’s own judgment, in most systems, is only permitted if you can prove your righteousness in advance. But here, when she violated the law, she did not know the reality (since she was “astonished to discover”) and certainly could not prove it. But this is a different discussion that requires entering into the halachic issue of making one’s own judgment.
I think that in our legal system, this doctrine is used to a very limited extent, much less than in the Americans.
True, but thank God, there are signs of expanding its use in Israeli law as well.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
