John Eastman, the attorney embroiled in a California disbarment trial, is currently making efforts to exclude a report from the U.S. House Select Committee that investigates the Jan. 6 attack from being used as evidence. On Monday, Eastman’s lawyer passionately argued that the committee’s report should not be considered in the trial, asserting that the committee’s inquiry does not qualify as an adversarial proceeding. Moreover, he contended that it lacks the proper application of rules of evidence and hearsay.
In legal parlance, an adversarial proceeding typically designates a trial or other type of court proceeding in which contesting parties present opposing views and evidence before an impartial trier of fact. In his objection, Eastman’s advocate argued that the Select Committee’s investigation does not meet the criterion of such a proceeding; hence, its report should not be recognized as valid evidence.
Evidence rules and hearsay intricacies are central to any legal proceeding. While evidence can make or break a case, it must meet careful codified requirements to be deemed worthy. In his argument, Eastman’s lawyer claimed that the Select Committee’s investigation and accompanying report did not respect these principles, making it ill-suited for use in the disbarment trial.
Subscribe to Law360 for more insights into Eastman’s efforts to weave through this labyrinths of jurisprudence.