Also known as: rebut evidence · rebuttal evidence · rebuts evidence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Evidence introduced by a party to contradict or disprove evidence offered by an opposing party.
In a federal homicide prosecution, the defense presented testimony that the victim initiated the fight. The prosecutor then called a coworker who described the victim's reputation for avoiding conflict. The jury considered the coworker's account when deciding whether the victim was the first aggressor.
Ravi Reddy sued a cooperative after an on-the-job injury and the defendant moved to dismiss for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Reddy offered payroll records showing the cooperative's principal place of business. The cooperative then introduced affidavits from local managers to rebut the payroll data.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ryan Roberts testified on direct that he had never possessed narcotics. The prosecution introduced an officer's testimony about a prior seizure from Roberts's home. The officer's account served as rebutting evidence to the direct testimony.
Rebecca Ross raised an insanity defense and introduced expert testimony on her schizophrenia. The state called its own psychiatrist who examined Ross after the offense. The psychiatrist's findings rebutted the defense expert's conclusions on capacity.
Raphael Rivera testified at trial that he had never been near the crime scene. The prosecution offered a prior statement obtained in violation of Miranda to contradict that testimony. The statement functioned as rebutting evidence limited to impeachment.
Rita Russell was charged with cross burning and claimed the act was protected political speech. The prosecution introduced evidence of prior threats against the victims. That evidence rebutted the claim that the burning carried no intent to intimidate.
In a homicide case the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim's trait of peacefulness once the defense has introduced evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.
Supporting sources
Rebutting evidence directly contradicts a fact in issue while impeachment evidence attacks a witness's credibility. Both may be offered in the same trial but serve distinct functions under the evidence rules.
Supporting sources
No. Rebutting evidence shifts only the burden of production on the particular point. The party with the ultimate burden of persuasion retains that burden throughout the case.
Supporting sources
Yes. Even relevant rebutting evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or needless cumulative presentation.
Supporting sources
…Mr. Justice Frankfurter's dissenting opinion, it appears that petitioner had "rested," and thus had waived his right to adduce rebuttal evidence upon the issue of respondent's jurisdictional defense, before the district judge sustained his motion to strike that defense and the supporting evidence. But my analysis of the record…