Oklahoma Criminal Law
For free consultation call 918 582 1313
Inherent in the power to make the law is the authority to define what evidence is and is not relevant. Oklahoma law defines “Relevant Evidence” as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” See Title 12 O.S. 2401.
If the law considers evidence to be irrelevant, the evidence is not admissible. “All relevant evidence is admissible... Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.” See Title 12 O.S. § 2402. Many times defendants and their families struggle with this concept because what the law considers to be relevant is not necessarily what an average person would consider to be relevant. The power to define what is and is not relevant is an enormous power because it controls what evidence is allowed to be introduced during a criminal proceeding. What type of evidence can be introduce at trial? Evidence that the law says is relevant. Who decides what the law says is relevant in a defendant's case? The Judge. During a criminal trial the judge is “the judge of the law” and the jury is the “judge of the facts”.
The law filters out some evidence and specifically allows for the admission of other evidence. Some of what the law filters out or allows evolved of the years through common law (appellate decisions) or through statutes. The statutes are passed by legislators who are politicians, so on some level politics influence what is or is not “legally admissible”. Some of the rules are fair in my opinion and some of the rules are not, regardless of my personal opinion, going into a trial lawyer sand their clients must operate within the restraints of the law.