Legal Definitions - comment on the evidence

"Comment on the evidence" refers to a statement made to a jury, either by the judge or by one of the lawyers, that expresses an opinion or interpretation about the significance or persuasive power of a particular piece of evidence. This involves suggesting how much a piece of evidence helps to prove or disprove a fact in the case. While lawyers routinely make such comments during their arguments, especially in closing statements, the ability of a judge to do so varies significantly between different court systems. In federal courts, judges generally have the discretion to comment on the evidence to help the jury understand complex issues. However, in most state courts, judges are typically prohibited from expressing their opinions on the weight or credibility of evidence, as this is considered the sole responsibility of the jury.

• Example 1: Lawyer's Comment in Closing Argument

  In a civil lawsuit where a plaintiff is seeking damages for a car accident, the plaintiff's attorney, during closing arguments, might point to a detailed medical report documenting the plaintiff's injuries and state, "This comprehensive report, prepared by a leading orthopedic surgeon, is not just a collection of observations; it is definitive proof of the severe and lasting impact this collision has had on my client's life, clearly establishing the extent of their suffering."

  Explanation: The attorney is commenting on the evidence (the medical report) by emphasizing its strong probative value and asserting its conclusive nature regarding the plaintiff's injuries and suffering, aiming to persuade the jury.

• Example 2: Federal Judge's Permissible Comment

  In a complex federal fraud trial involving numerous financial transactions and expert accounting testimony, the judge might instruct the jury, "You have heard extensive testimony from both sides regarding the financial statements. While the prosecution's expert highlighted certain discrepancies, the defense's expert offered alternative explanations for those same figures. It is important for you to carefully weigh the methodologies and conclusions presented by each expert when determining whether fraudulent intent has been proven."

  Explanation: Here, the federal judge is permissibly commenting on the evidence (the expert testimony on financial statements) by guiding the jury on how to approach and evaluate the conflicting expert opinions, without dictating a specific finding but emphasizing the importance of their assessment.

• Example 3: State Judge's Impermissible Comment

  During a state court trial for arson, after a witness testifies that they saw the defendant leaving the scene shortly before the fire, the judge then says to the jury, "The testimony from the eyewitness placing the defendant at the scene seems quite compelling and directly supports the prosecution's theory of the case."

  Explanation: This would be an impermissible comment because the state judge is expressing an opinion on the credibility of the eyewitness and the strength of their testimony, which is exclusively the jury's role to determine. Such a statement could unduly influence the jury's independent judgment.