How does the evidence presented in a small claims court hearing differ from that presented in other courts?

In Massachusetts, Small Claims Court is the court of limited jurisdiction that handles civil disputes involving relatively small amounts of money. Small Claims Court cases typically involve individuals rather than businesses, so the amount of evidence presented in Small Claims Court is much less than in other courts. In comparison, courts of higher jurisdiction generally have stricter rules of evidence because of the greater potential for harm or damages that could result from a hearing. In a Small Claims Court, only tangible evidence is allowed to be presented in court. This includes items like photographs, contracts, receipts, witness testimony, recordings, and other documents. Evidence must be relevant to the case at hand, and the judge may refuse to consider evidence that is not related to the dispute. This is much more relaxed than other courts in which both direct and circumstantial evidence is often accepted. Another difference between Small Claims Court and other courts is the type of testimony that is accepted. Small Claims Court hearings are non-jury trials, so the judge typically hears testimony from both the plaintiff and the defendant. However, in other courts, a witness can be called to give expert testimony to the jury. This type of testimony is not allowed in Small Claims Court. So, in summary, the differences between the evidence presented in Small Claims Court and a court of higher jurisdiction is that Small Claims Court typically only allows tangible evidence and witness testimony, whereas higher courts may admit both direct and circumstantial evidence, as well as expert testimony.

How does the evidence presented in a small claims court hearing differ from that presented in other courts?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts