This Affidavit Is The Preliminary Affidavit Final Affidavit: Fill & Download for Free

An affidavit is sworn testimony reduced to writing. It’s given by a witness who has personal knowledge of the facts described in the affidavit. Affidavits are used to make a preliminary showing of facts, for things like search warrants. While they can be the last word on factual issues if they are uncontested, they are usually superseded by live testimony at a trial or hearing before there is a final determination of legally significant facts.A brief, on the other hand, is legal argument by lawyers. It may refer to facts but it doesn’t establish any. The purpose of a brief is mostly to acquaint the court with the existing law and precedent. It therefore consists largely of citations to law books.

Let me give you the real picture: This is my experience of working as an independent Civil lawyer in District court. Experiences of Corporate Lawyers may be drastically different.When I graduated from college and became a lawyer, someone asked me what had to be done when they had banged their car against somebody and injured that person, I was clueless!I knew what you did when the government acquires your land, and violates your fundamental right (something that doesn't happen every other day, at least not after Mrs. Indira Gandhi passed away!), but I didn't know what to do in this case.Now that would give you an idea of what it is like to be a lawyer. The biggest enlightenment after graduating is that all you know is of no use. What you studied for 5 years is only how to read and understand the law.What you will be doing is applying it to your case and convincing the judge that your interpretation is right.So, after graduating too, you are still a novice!The second shocker (put off, disappointment, frustration, Downright fright!) is when you enter the District Court. People who have visited Courts in their lives would understand. The moment you enter, you see this ocean of black coats. Most of them are writing affidavits, bail bonds, sitting on the staircases, or simply hanging around with friends. Now that seriously gives you a fright. You tend to think, even with India’s number of litigation, if so many of them don’t get work, what would be your chance?Court life in your junior ship days is pretty gloomy too. Most of the times, the court clerks give you a hard time simply because you are not old enough. Many lady advocates I know deliberately wear saris just to make themselves look older. This is probably the only profession where men welcome balding! It is presumed here that age brings wisdom (in this case, more legal knowledge).What is it then that makes so many among the young practice? One of the reasons is sheer love for the law (I am not joking!).Let me go a little bit into details here. The moment a client comes to you with a problem, your brain cells get a kick. Starting from whether the client is telling the truth (not that it is your job to know!) to how to best represent him / her, everything is a challenge.So then he/she narrates the facts (most of the times irrelevant from the legal point of view). You make a note of that in your head and ask them to write their full story and get it to you the next time. Assuming that the client really has a got case, you then begin the preliminary work of drafting the case while trying to achieve the feat of keeping the draft both succinct and vague; succinct to make a good case and vague to give enough leverage to your client when time comes for him to face the cross examination.Now that you have a case drafted you then file it in the court and wait endlessly for all the administrative steps to be completed. After a few months or so, when the evidence part begins, life becomes a little interesting. The most interesting thing for any budding lawyer is to witness a cross examination, especially if it is being conducted by legal giants. A cross examination to a lawyer is like the Karakoram for a trekker (Of course Karakoram, or your house on the 2nd floor totally depends in the witness who is to be cross examined!) So, assuming that the witness is a smart one, it then becomes a great challenge to make him say what you want and not what he wants to say.The next interesting stage obviously is final arguments by the advocates on both the sides, your last challenge. This is when your actions are over and you patiently wait for the judgment all the while reminding yourself of the Geeta’s philosophy of just doing and actions and not expecting any fruits.Assuming you win, the client at least shows some interest in paying the rest of your legal fees. If you lose, it’s a job to make the client understand that no lawyer can guarantee a victory. That whether you pass or fail, you have to pay the tuition fee because the teacher did his job.When it comes to paying the doctor, people are head over heels to do it. But when it comes to paying a lawyer, nobody wants to (A fact that you have to live with!).Another fact is that no matter what you do, sadly the society perceives you as a blood sucking (or money sucking) beast. I don’t completely blame them since many are sadly duped by my kind. But, guys, not all are the same!So, there you go, this is the life of an ordinary lawyer. Case after case.Here are some of the life lessons that I learnt from working as a lawyer:When I worked as a lawyer, I realized that there are thousands of shades to a human being's character. With this realization I stopped judging people.When I worked as a lawyer, I realized that many a times, there isn't really anything called right and wrong. This thought has humbled me!When I worked as a lawyer, I realized that all human beings regardless of their social or economic stature are just as fallible. That thought gives me a new sense of responsibility of doing the honorable thing.When I worked as a lawyer, I realized that human mind has no bounds. That if you really apply your mind, you can challenge any notion of the society. This thought will empower you and make you strive for perfection.As I think of the journey of mankind, I thank laws, as I thank science. Because these two disciplines have helped us progress to where we are today.~ Not the 'lawyering' they show in movies!~Tejasvita Apte's answer to Why have you studied law?

Well, the word “affidavit” is appearing in the news recently and the term is being used very loosely. The news “affidavits” consist of pieces of paper. The pieces of paper have writing on it claiming that there is election fraud.At this point we have no idea of these affidavits are anything at all or if they aren’t outright lies in an effort to commit fraud.Here is the process for an affidavit in a normal courtroom setting:An affidavit is a sworn written statement to be submitted in court proceedings. Technically, affidavits also contain a notarized signature, but most courts don’t distinguish between notarized affidavits and “Declarations under penalty of perjury” that aren’t notarized. Generally, either can be used in court.The key wording is the language just above the signature of the document. That language is some version of “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.”An affidavit, therefore, is a sworn statement signed by a person who is exposed to perjury charges if it turns out the person is lying.Now, most people are generally aware of the concept of “Hearsay.” Non-lawyers think of hearsay as “second hand information.” That’s pretty close. Hearsay is defined as “any out of court statement offered for the truth of the matters asserted.”Any affidavit is, by definition, an out of court statement. How do affidavits get into evidence in court if they are hearsay?The answer is determined only after a process. Affidavits are not admitted at trials in the very vast majority of cases precisely because they are hearsay. In pretrial proceedings and motions they are admitted, not because theyre not hearsay, but because it’’s too time consuming and burdensome to have to call witnesses on what are often preliminary matters. For most court hearings therefore, the mere fact that an affidavit, made outside of court, isn’ treated as hearsay in motions is just a matter of expediency. The judge, if suspicious, can always have the witness testify in court.But now we get tot the crux of the matter:First, is the affidavit even evidence? Not yet. The affidavit’s statements are subject to the same rules as as all other in court testimony. Affidavits frequently contain a paragraph that begins, “X told me….” If those words were spoken in the courtroom, they may be considered “hearsay, because they are an out of court statement. The same statement in an affidavit is treated identically. Now, hearsay itself is a complex body of evidence law. In determining whether or not something is admissible there are two general principles: (1) there are some things that meet the definition of hearsay, but courts still admit them. A perfect example is a birth certificate. It’s an out of court statement asserting that a birth occurred at a certain time and location. Birth certificates are an exception to the hearsay rule. There are many similar documents that are also exceptions to the general hearsay rule. (2). There are out of court statement not offered for the truth of the matter. A statement may be offered to show that a person was alive or at a particular location on a certain date or at a certain location or was aware of an event at the date and time. Oral contract terms are not offered for the truth fo the matter asserted. Sometimes a statement is offered to demonstrate that it is false. Out of court statements made by an in-court opponent are not hearsay because the opponent can simply take the stand and deny it.Also, the person testifying in the affidavit is limited by all of the same rules that apply to in court witnesses. The witness must be “competent” to testify. The witness cannot be delusional or under the effects of alcohol or drugs. The witness must be testifying about facts, not offering opinions (with one exception discussed below). All of the witness’s testimony must be based on first hand information.If the witness is offering an expert opinion, then the witness must set out sufficient facts to demonstrate that the person qualifies as an expert, set out facts relied upon by the expert in forming the expert opinion and set out the opinion itself and showing how it relates to the facts. Speculation and unfounded opinions by experts and non-experts alike are not allowed. It is common that affidavits contain documents and exhibits that are referred to in the body of the affidavit. The documetns and exhibits are also subjec tot hearsay restrictions. You can;t get evidence in through an exhibit to an affidavit if it’s not otherwise admissible.Now, after that long foundation, I am finally getting to answer your question.A mere affidavit outside the courtroom is not evidence or proof of anything. To be treated as evidence it must be offered into evidence. The opposing party can object to its admission on all of the evidentiary grounds available to any other testimony or any other evidence. Usually, this is done by a series of written objections filed by the other side. The objections can be to the affidavit as a whole, but are often done paragraph by paragraph and exhibit by exhibit. If documents and exhibits attached to an affidavit would be inadmissible if offered in court , they are also inadmissible if offered by affidavit. The the statement in the affidavit is hearsay, not based on perosn observation or a non expert’s opinion, it’s not admissible. If the expert’s opinion is not founded on the facts or is speculative or not founded on solid science, it’s not admissible.The judge rules on the objections. Theses rulings may mean that some or all of the affidavit is not admitted as evidence and some or all of he exhibits attached to the affidavit are not admitted as evidence.So, to answer part of your question, affidavits are not evidence. Affidavits waved around at a podium are not evidence. Affidavits offered into evidence in a courtroom may not be admitted, may be partially admitted or may be admitted completely, depending on the objections made and the ruling by the court on admissibility. Whatever is admitted becomes evidence in that case.Are they proof of anything once they are admitted? Here, the answer is clear. The answer is “No.” They are merely evidence that can be wieghed against other evidence available to the court and given the weight they deserve. Are they candid? Are they evasive, are they based on complete information? Do they acknowledge facts harmful to their position? Is the person who signed the affidavit biased or credible? Are there opposing affidavits or evidence? Are those credible? All of these considerations are factored into the the weight to be give any particular affidavit. Well crated, well supported affidavits are powerful. Affidavits that appear ot be evasive or less than candid are worthless evidence.In one of my cases, I needed an expert witness. I called my favorite expert and was horrified to find that the other side had hired him first. He later submitted an affidavit containing 18 paragraphs of statements. I objected to each paragraph, explaining why each paragraph was inadmissible. The jduge sustained each of my objections so the only thing left in the affidavit was his name and the statement that he was over the age of 18. We still laugh about his affidavit that declared his age and name and nothing else under penalty of perjury. It goes to show, however, that an affidavit may not be evidence and is never proof of anything.