02 Dec The Legal Concept of Evidence
There are different types of evidence, depending on the form or source. Evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g., oral or written statements such as an affidavit), evidence (e.g., physical objects), documents or admissible evidence (i.e., that may be considered by the court) in judicial or administrative proceedings (e.g., a court). Imagine that the accused is prosecuted for the crime of rape and that the alleged victim`s behaviour (fact A) increases the likelihood that she consented to sexual intercourse with the accused (fact B). According to the probabilistic theory of relevance we considered, A is relevant to B. Now suppose that the alleged victim is a minor. In criminal law, it does not matter whether she consented to sexual intercourse. If B has no legal consequences, the court will not allow evidence to be presented for A for the purposes of evidence B: the most obvious reason is that it is a waste of time to obtain the evidence. Objects that are not easily identifiable often need to be authenticated by a chain of command. In the case of a blood sample, an appropriate basis would include the testimony of each person who handled the blood – from the nurse who drew the blood to the lab technician who tested it, to the messenger who handed it over to the courthouse for trial.
Unless each person can testify that the condition of the blood sample remained essentially the same from the time it was taken until it was introduced into evidence (taking into account any loss of quantity due to testing), the court could allow an objection by the other party. The sample would then be inadmissible due to a lack of authentication. The third criticism is directed against holistic theories of probative thinking in general and not specifically against the theory of relative plausibility. While it may be descriptively true that investigators decide judgments by holistically assessing the plausibility of competing explanations, hypotheses, narratives or factual theories generated from the evidence, such forms of reasoning may hide biases and biases that are more likely to be exposed in a systematic approach such as Bayesian analysis (Twining 2006:319; Simon, 2004, 2011; Griffin, 2013). A hypothesis advanced by the investigator may unconsciously be shaped by a preconceived generalization or underlying belief about the defendant based on a particular characteristic, such as race or sexual history. Individualizing this characteristic and subjecting it to Bayesian tests has the desirable effect of shedding light on the underlying generalization or belief and forcing the investigator to address the problem of prejudice. At any hearing or hearing requiring the admission of evidence, lawyers have a duty to challenge evidence that the court`s decisions deem inadmissible. Objections must be raised in good time as soon as the witness or opposing party attempts to present evidence improperly.
A lawyer who does not immediately acknowledge and challenge inadmissible evidence faces serious consequences: the evidence may be admitted for consideration by the judge or jury, and if the case is challenged, the Court of Appeal will allow it to be considered admissible. On the other hand, a lawyer who frequently objects to appropriate and admissible evidence runs the risk of alienating or antagonizing the jury. A litigant must therefore learn to quickly recognize inadmissible evidence and to oppose it properly. PROOF, EXTRINSICA. External or non-external evidence contained in the body of an agreement, contract, or other similar material. 2. As a general rule, it is prohibited to admit external evidence to contradict, explain, modify or modify the terms of a contract or will, unless there is a latent ambiguity or to refute a resulting trust. 14 John. 1; 1 day, R. 8; 6 Conn. 270. Fourth, we have so far relied on very simplified – and therefore unrealistic – examples to facilitate illustration.
In real cases, there is usually multiple and dependent evidence, and the probabilities of all possible conjunctions of these elements, which are numerous, must be calculated. These calculations are far too complex to be performed by humans (Callen 1982: 10-15). The inability to conform to the Bayesian model undermines its prescriptive value. Scholarship argues. such models establish the correct or exact weight of evidence and thus imply that deviations from those models lead to inaccurate or irrational results. (Allen and Pardo 2007b: 308) This section takes up the fourth conception of evidence. As a reminder, something is accepted as evidence by the court – it is, to use Montrose`s term, obtained as evidence in judicial proceedings – only if three fundamental conditions are met: relevance, materiality and admissibility (Montrose 1954). These three eligibility conditions are examined in turn below. The best evidence rule is a misleading name for the courts` preference for original writings, recordings and photographs over copies if the content is to be proven. The purpose of this common law rule was to avoid the risk of inaccuracies in handmade copies.
The current rule of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires the use of original writings, photographs and photographs (including x-rays and films), but the rule defines the original as including most photocopies or prints of the same negative. The risk of inaccuracies due to this type of duplication is almost non-existent. If the original evidence is lost, destroyed, unavailable or in the possession of the opposing party, the court will not require a party to produce the original. Evidence of a confession may be excluded because it was obtained through repression or because the confession was made as a result of something that was said or done to the accused that could make the confession unreliable. In these circumstances, the trial judge would be free to exclude the evidence of the confession under section 78(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) or section 73 of PACE or the common law, although in practice confessions are excluded under section 76 of PACE. [7] 6. Bentham 1825 is a one-volume English translation of Dumont`s French edition of Bentham`s proofs. Bentham 1827 is a five-volume edition prepared by John S.
Mill. A statement similar to that quoted in the text can be found in this latest edition, vol. 4, p. 4. 572: To say that the testimony is irrelevant means that it is extraneous to the case, that it has no connection with it and that it does not serve to prove the fact in question; In a word, it means that it is not proof. The most common form of evidence is witness testimony. A witness may be someone who actually saw the crime or other contentious event, or a witness may be someone with other relevant information — someone who heard a dog barking near a murder, or who saw an allegedly injured complainant lifting weights the day after his accident, or who shared an office with the defendant and can describe his character and personality. Any qualified person may testify as a witness if the testimony meets other requirements, such as relevance. The premise of the third criticism is that the trial judge must draw a conclusion on a disputed factual assertion based on his belief in the statement.
This is controversial. Beliefs are involuntary; We cannot believe something by simply choosing to believe it. The prevailing view is that beliefs are independent of context; At some point, we cannot believe something in one context and not believe in another. On the other hand, legal fact-finding involves selection and decision-making and depends on the context; For example, evidence strong enough to support a finding of fact in a civil case may not be strong enough to support the same finding in criminal proceedings where the standard of proof is higher.