Ethnicity Clothing

An Example of Legal Evidence

Perhaps the most important of the rules of evidence is that hearsay testimony is generally inadmissible (although there are many exceptions to this rule). In England and Wales, section 1 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 explicitly permits the admission of hearsay evidence; The law also allows the use of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings, which allows the prosecutor to incite friends or family members to make false statements in support of their accusations, as they would normally be dismissed by the judge or presiding judge. There are several examples where the presiding authorities are not bound by the rules of evidence. These include military courts in the United States and courts used in Australia to bring medical professionals to justice. Whether a person is charged with a serious or minor crime, the accused always has the right to be tried, among various other legal protections. Historically, the rules of admissibility or exclusion are the product of the jury system, in which citizens who are not trained in the evaluation of evidence sit as judges of fact. These rules arose because it was deemed necessary to keep certain types of evidence that may be misled or abused by them away from inexperienced jurors – for example, evidence to which they are likely to attach too much weight or which may create unjust harm in their minds (Thayer 1898; Wigmore 1935: 4-5). Epistemic paternalism is said to be at stake (Leiter 1997:814-5; Allen and Leiter, 2001: 1502). Adherence to this theory, with the decline of the jury system and the replacement of lay people by professional judges as perpetrators, exerted pressure on the abolition of exclusion rules. There are doubts as to the historical accuracy of this account; in any event, it does not seem to be able to explain the growth of all exclusion rules (Morgan 1936-37; Nance 1988: 278-294). Understanding the different types of evidence is essential for anyone interested in a career as a law enforcement officer, forensic pathologist or lawyer.

Here are 21 types of evidence that are often introduced in jury trials: Forensic evidence, or scientific evidence, is an incredibly useful form of evidence in a jury trial. It often introduces indisputable facts that investigators and forensic pathologists prove using scientific methods. Forensic evidence mainly relates to genetic information such as DNA and fingerprints. It may also contain evidence proven by physics and other forms of science, such as ballistics. Its reliability makes it an important factor in jurors` decision to convict or exonerate an accused in criminal cases. Your natural sense of curiosity and penchant for exploring secrets can draw you into the legal field when you think about your career opportunities. While the long years of study required to become a lawyer may not be a realistic path for you, the prospect of a career as a paralegal can still be very appealing. However, the relevance of the evidence is generally a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition for the admissibility of the evidence. For example, relevant evidence may be excluded if it is unfairly prejudicial or confusing, or if the relevance or irrelevance of the evidence cannot be determined by logical analysis. It is also generally accepted that the assessment of relevance or lack of relevance involves or requires judgments about probabilities or uncertainties.

In addition, there is little agreement. Many jurists and judges agree that ordinary or rational thought plays an important role. There is less agreement as to whether relevant or irrelevant judgments are justifiable only if the reasoning supporting those judgments is made fully explicit. However, most trial judges would reject such a requirement, arguing that some judgments can and should be based in part on inarticulate and inarticulate intuitions and intuitions. However, there is general (albeit implicit) agreement that the relevance of at least some types of expert evidence – especially hard science evidence – requires particularly rigorous or, in any case, more obscure reasoning than is generally necessary or expected.

Scroll to Top