Can voicemails be used in court

Evidence admissible?

Attention archive

This answer is dated 04/18/2011 and may be out of date. Ask your current question now and get a legally binding answer from a lawyer.

Now ask a new question

Dear questioner,

The admission is admissible as evidence. It is a so-called visual evidence. This includes all evidence that can be perceived by the senses & lpar; which, even if the designation is misleading, is not limited to seeing & rpar ;.

The admissibility results from §§ 371 ff. ZPO. The need to take evidence does not depend on the arbitrariness of the judge. Evidence must be obtained if the fact is relevant to the decision and in dispute between the parties.

In my opinion, there are also no concerns about usability. In contrast to a secret recording, the privacy is not affected here. The case is comparable to a letter in which the deferral of the claim is promised.

So the answer is: B may.

With best regards

M. Juhre

Inquiry from the questioner18.04.2011 | 02:40

If A does not dispute the content of the conversation, but fears that playing back the recording will result in disadvantages in the proceedings, can B still demand that the recording be played back in court?

Answer to the question from the lawyer18.04.2011 | 02:50

If A does not dispute the content, the fact is no longer in dispute & lpar; § 138 para. 3 ZPO & rpar ;. No evidence is taken of an undisputed fact. It is then simply assumed to be true and the decision is based on it.

If the playback of the recording has any secondary purposes, the court is not interested. B cannot request that the recording be played. A corresponding request for evidence would be rejected.

With best regards

M. Juhre