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) PROOFS, DISADVANTAGES. Evidence of facts that are usually accompanied by other facts that must be proved; This is not direct evidence. For example, if a witness testifies that a man was stabbed with a knife and that a piece of blade was found in the wound, and that it corresponds exactly to another part of the blade that is in the prisoner`s possession; The facts are directly attested, but they only prove the circumstances, and that is why we talk about circumstantial evidence. 2. Circumstantial evidence is of two types, namely certain and uncertain. Certainly, the conclusion in question necessarily follows, because if a man had sustained a fatal wound and it had been found that the imprint of a bloody left hand had been made on the left arm of the deceased, it was certain that a person other than the deceased must have left such a mark. 14 How. St. Tr.
1324. However, it is not certain whether the death was caused by suicide or murder, and whether the mark of the bloody hand was made by the murderer or by a friendly hand that came to the aid of the deceased too late. Id. Empty circumstances. Other admissible evidence may be excluded at the discretion of the trial judge under section 78 of PACE or the common law if he or she can be satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the manner in which the evidence was obtained, “the admission of the evidence would prejudice the fairness of the proceedings to such an extent that the court should not admit it.” [7] One of the main purposes of using the adjective “logical” is to indicate the non-legal nature of relevance. As Thayer (1898:269) has argued, relevance is “a matter of logic, not law.” This is not to say that relevance does not have a legal dimension. The law distinguishes between questions of law and questions of fact. A relevant question raises a question of law that is for the judge, not the jury, to decide, and to the extent that relevance is defined in the sources of law (e.g., in the Federal Rule of Evidence 401 noted above), the judge must respect the legal definition. But the legal definitions of relevance are, without exception, very broad. Relevance is a logical, not a legal, concept in the sense that, in order to answer a question of relevance and apply the definition of relevance, the judge must necessarily rely on extrajudicial means and is not bound by precedent. Returning to Federal Rule of Evidence 401, it generally states that evidence is relevant when it “tends to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” To decide whether the evidence to be presented demonstrates this tendency, the judge must look beyond the law.
Thayer insisted. As he said, “There is no relevance test in the law. For this he tacitly refers to logic and general experience” (Thayer 1898:265). The fact that the defendant`s preferred colour is blue is, barring exceptional circumstances, irrelevant to the question of his intention to steal. It is not the law that tells us this, but “logic and general experience”. According to Thayer, the law does not control or regulate the assessment of relevance; It assumes that judges already have the (reasonable) resources to carry out this assessment. A court decision in a previous case with facts and points of law similar to a dispute currently pending in court. Judges generally “follow precedents,” that is, they use principles established in previous cases to decide new cases that have similar facts and raise similar legal issues. A judge will disregard precedents if a party can prove that the previous case was ill-decided or that it differs significantly from the current case. 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] Evidence 1: Best evidence in this entry 2: Evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search If you have further questions about the rules of evidence and their role in a court case, you should speak to a defence lawyer or assault lawyer in your area. PROOF, CONCLUSIVE. What is not disputed but satisfies the judge and jury is also what cannot be contradicted. 2. The minutes of a common law court are conclusive as to the facts set out in the minutes. 2 washes 64; 2:55 a.m.; 6 Conn. 508, But the trial and record of a jury do not constitute conclusive evidence before national courts unless they have jurisdiction over the subject-matter; And whether or not it is can be decided by the state courts. 1 Conn. 429.
For the conclusiveness of judgments of foreign admiralty courts, see 4 Cranch, 421, 434; 3. Cranch, 458; Gilmer, 16 Const. R. 381 1 N. & M. 5 3 7. Wigmore`s position on relevance is strangely at odds with his firm position against the judge being bound by case law to judge the weight or credibility of evidence (Wigmore 1913).