introduction to criminal evidence and court procedure pdf

Introduction to criminal evidence and court procedure pdf

File Name: introduction to criminal evidence and court procedure .zip
Size: 1372Kb
Published: 25.04.2021

Legal systems in the UK (England and Wales): overview

Legal system

Cookies on GOV.UK

The law of evidence , also known as the rules of evidence , encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury.

This resource is periodically updated for necessary changes due to legal, market, or practice developments. Significant developments affecting this resource will be described below. What's on Practical Law? Show less Show more.

Legal systems in the UK (England and Wales): overview

The law of evidence , also known as the rules of evidence , encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury.

The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction. The quantum of evidence is the amount of evidence needed; the quality of proof is how reliable such evidence should be considered.

Important rules that govern admissibility concern hearsay , authentication , relevance , privilege , witnesses , opinions , expert testimony , identification and rules of physical evidence. There are various standards of evidence, standards showing how strong the evidence must be to meet the legal burden of proof in a given situation, ranging from reasonable suspicion to preponderance of the evidence , clear and convincing evidence , or beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are several types of evidence, depending on the form or source. Evidence governs the use of testimony e. When a dispute, whether relating to a civil or criminal matter, reaches the court there will always be a number of issues which one party will have to prove in order to persuade the court to find in his or her favour.

The law must ensure certain guidelines are set out in order to ensure that evidence presented to the court can be regarded as trustworthy. The rules of evidence were developed over several centuries and are based upon the rules from Anglo-American common law brought to the New World by early settlers.

The purpose is to be fair to both parties, disallowing the raising of allegations without a basis in provable fact. They are sometimes criticized as a legal technicality , but are an important part of the system for achieving a just result. Perhaps the most important of the rules of evidence is that, in general, hearsay testimony is inadmissible although there are many exceptions to this rule.

In England and Wales , the Civil Evidence Act , section 1, specifically allows for admission of 'hearsay' evidence; legislation also allows for 'hearsay' evidence to be used in criminal proceedings, which makes it possible for the accuser to induce friends or family to give false evidence in support of their accusations because, normally, it would be rejected by the presiding authority or judge.

There are several examples where presiding authorities are not bound by the rules of evidence. These include the military tribunals in the United States and tribunals used in Australia to try health professionals. In every jurisdiction based on the English common law tradition, evidence must conform to a number of rules and restrictions to be admissible. However, the relevance of evidence is ordinarily a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for the admissibility of evidence.

For example, relevant evidence may be excluded if it is unfairly prejudicial, confusing, or the relevance or irrelevance of evidence cannot be determined by logical analysis. There is also general agreement that assessment of relevance or irrelevance involves or requires judgements about probabilities or uncertainties. Beyond that, there is little agreement. Many legal scholars and judges agree that ordinary reasoning, or common sense reasoning, plays an important role.

There is less agreement about whether or not judgements of relevance or irrelevance are defensible only if the reasoning that supports such judgements is made fully explicit. However, most trial judges would reject any such requirement and would say that some judgements can and must rest partly on unarticulated and unarticulable hunches and intuitions.

According to Rule of the Federal Rules of Evidence FRE , evidence is relevant if it has the "tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Federal Rule allows relevant evidence to be excluded "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice", if it leads to confusion of the issues, if it is misleading or if it is a waste of time.

California Evidence Code section also allows for exclusion to avoid "substantial danger of undue prejudice. The United States has a very complicated system of evidentiary rules; for example, John Wigmore 's celebrated treatise on it filled ten volumes. Some legal experts, notably Stanford legal historian Lawrence Friedman , have argued that the complexity of American evidence law arises from two factors: 1 the right of American defendants to have findings of fact made by a jury in practically all criminal cases as well as many civil cases; and 2 the widespread consensus that tight limitations on the admissibility of evidence are necessary to prevent a jury of untrained laypersons from being swayed by irrelevant distractions.

The majority of people now reject the formerly-popular proposition that the institution of trial by jury is the main reason for the existence of rules of evidence even in countries such as the United States and Australia; they argue that other variables [ clarification needed ] are at work.

Under English law , evidence that would otherwise be admissible at trial may be excluded at the discretion of the trial judge if it would be unfair to the defendant to admit it. Evidence of a confession may be excluded because it was obtained by oppression or because the confession was made in consequence of anything said or done to the defendant that would be likely to make the confession unreliable.

Other admissible evidence may be excluded, at the discretion of the trial judge under 78 PACE, or at common law, if the judge can be persuaded that having regard to all the circumstances including how the evidence was obtained "admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.

In the United States and other countries, evidence may be excluded from a trial if it is the result of illegal activity by law enforcement, such as a search conducted without a warrant. Such illegal evidence is known as the fruit of the poisonous tree and is normally not permitted at trial.

Certain kinds of evidence, such as documentary evidence, are subject to the requirement that the offeror provide the trial judge with a certain amount of evidence which need not be much and it need not be very strong suggesting that the offered item of tangible evidence e.

This authentication requirement has import primarily in jury trials. If evidence of authenticity is lacking in a bench trial, the trial judge will simply dismiss the evidence as unpersuasive or irrelevant.

Other kinds of evidence can be self-authenticating and require nothing to prove that the item is tangible evidence. Examples of self-authenticating evidence includes signed and certified public documents, newspapers, and acknowledged documents. In systems of proof based on the English common law tradition, almost all evidence must be sponsored by a witness , who has sworn or solemnly affirmed to tell the truth. The bulk of the law of evidence regulates the types of evidence that may be sought from witnesses and the manner in which the interrogation of witnesses is conducted such as during direct examination and cross-examination of witnesses.

Other types of evidentiary rules specify the standards of persuasion e. Today all persons are presumed to be qualified to serve as witnesses in trials and other legal proceedings, and all persons are also presumed to have a legal obligation to serve as witnesses if their testimony is sought. However, legal rules sometimes exempt people from the obligation to give evidence and legal rules disqualify people from serving as witnesses under some circumstances.

Privilege rules give the holder of the privilege a right to prevent a witness from giving testimony. These privileges are ordinarily but not always designed to protect socially valued types of confidential communications. Some of the privileges that are often recognized in various U.

A variety of additional privileges are recognized in different jurisdictions, but the list of recognized privileges varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; for example, some jurisdictions recognize a social worker—client privilege and other jurisdictions do not.

Witness competence rules are legal rules that specify circumstances under which persons are ineligible to serve as witnesses. For example, neither a judge nor a juror is competent to testify in a trial in which the judge or the juror serves in that capacity; and in jurisdictions with a dead man statute , a person is deemed not competent to testify as to statements of or transactions with a deceased opposing party.

Often, a Government or Parliamentary Act will govern the rules affecting the giving of evidence by witnesses in court. Hearsay is one of the largest and most complex areas of the law of evidence in common-law jurisdictions. The default rule is that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

A party is offering a statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted if the party is trying to prove that the assertion made by the declarant the maker of the out-of-trial statement is true. For example, prior to trial Bob says, "Jane went to the store.

However, at both common law and under evidence codifications such as the Federal Rules of Evidence , there are dozens of exemptions from and exceptions to the hearsay rule. Direct evidence is any evidence that directly proves or disproves a fact. The most well-known type of direct evidence is a testimony from an eyewitness. In eye-witness testimonies the witness states exactly what they experienced, saw, or heard. Direct evidence may also be found in the form of documents.

In cases that involve a breach of contract, the contract itself would be considered direct evidence as it can directly prove or disprove that there was breach of contract. Circumstantial evidence , however, is evidence that does not point directly to a fact and requires an inference in order to prove that fact. A common example of the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence involves a person who comes into a building, when it may be raining.

If the person declares, "It's raining outside", that statement is direct evidence that it is raining. If the person is carrying a wet umbrella, and he is wearing a wet rain coat, those observations are circumstantial evidence that it is raining outside. Different types of proceedings require parties to meet different burdens of proof , the typical examples being beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence, and preponderance of the evidence.

Many jurisdictions have burden-shifting provisions, which require that if one party produces evidence tending to prove a certain point, the burden shifts to the other party to produce superior evidence tending to disprove it. One special category of information in this area includes things of which the court may take judicial notice. This category covers matters that are so well known that the court may deem them proved without the introduction of any evidence.

For example, if a defendant is alleged to have illegally transported goods across a state line by driving them from Boston to Los Angeles , the court may take judicial notice of the fact that it is impossible to drive from Boston to Los Angeles without crossing a number of state lines.

In a civil case, where the court takes judicial notice of the fact, that fact is deemed conclusively proved. In a criminal case, however, the defense may always submit evidence to rebut a point for which judicial notice has been taken.

Some rules that affect the admissibility of evidence are nonetheless considered to belong to other areas of law. These include the exclusionary rule of criminal procedure , which prohibits the admission in a criminal trial of evidence gained by unconstitutional means, and the parol evidence rule of contract law , which prohibits the admission of extrinsic evidence of the contents of a written contract.

In countries that follow the civil law system , evidence is normally studied as a branch of procedural law. All American law schools offer a course in evidence, and most require the subject either as a first year class, or as an upper-level class, or as a prerequisite to later courses. Furthermore, evidence is heavily tested on the Multistate Bar Examination MBE - approximately one-sixth of the questions asked in that test will be in the area of evidence.

The MBE predominantly tests evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence , giving little attention to matters on which the law of different states is likely to be inconsistent. Tampering is usually the criminal law variant in which a person alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys evidence to interfere with a law-enforcement, governmental, or regulatory investigation, and is usually defined as a crime. Parallel construction is the creation of an untruthful, but plausible, explanation for how the evidence came to be held, which hides its true origins, either to protect sources and methods used, or to avoid the evidence being excluded as unlawfully obtained.

Depending on the circumstances, acts to conceal or destroy evidence or misrepresent its true origins might be considered both tampering and spoliation. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Body of facts in a legal proceeding. For other uses, see Evidence disambiguation. For the Stone Sour song, see Stone Sour album. This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. Learn how and when to remove these template messages.

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the English-speaking world and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article , discuss the issue on the talk page , or create a new article , as appropriate.

February Learn how and when to remove this template message. This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Conviction Acquittal Not proven 3 Directed verdict.

Legal system

Search this site. Active Learning PDF. Alice in Wonderland PDF. Alternative Worship PDF. Amanda Beard PDF.

UK, remember your settings and improve government services. We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services. You can change your cookie settings at any time. The guide to the new rules , below, describes those changes. The new rules are published on the Legislation website. On 1 December the Sentencing Act replaces most other sentencing legislation.

Skip to main navigation. Below are links to the national federal rules and forms in effect, as well as local rules which are required to be consistent with the national rules prescribed by district courts and courts of appeal. Updated PDFs for each set of rules that includes these amendments will be posted on this page when they become available from the U. Government Publishing Office in January once the th Congress is convened. The Supreme Court first adopted the Rules of Appellate Procedure by order dated December 4, , transmitted to Congress on January 15, , and effective July 1,

Cookies on GOV.UK

The admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings is set out in sections and of Part II Criminal Justice Act and applies to all criminal proceedings begun on or after 4th April section Criminal Justice Act Hearsay is not explicitly defined in the CJA but the opening words of s 1 taken together with section 3 effectively define it as a representation of fact or opinion made by a person, otherwise than in oral evidence in the proceedings in question, when tendered as evidence of any matter stated therein. Section 2 defines a 'statement' as "any representation of fact or opinion made by a person by whatever means"; and it includes a representation made in a sketch, photo fit or other pictorial form. Although not proceedings "in relation to which the strict rules of evidence apply" in proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act where the admissibility of a statement or the weight to be attached to it are of importance and seriously disputed, the court may be assisted by considering the factors referred to section 2 CJA as well as section A 'matter stated' is one where the purpose or one of the purposes of the person making the statement appears to have been to cause another person to believe the matter or to cause another person to act or a machine to operate on the basis that the matter is as stated - Section 3.

German law does provide for the exclusion of evidence in some situations, but its effect is limited to preventing the trial court from explicitly relying on the inadmissible evidence as a basis for the judgement. That said, in most cases the judges nevertheless remain aware of the excluded evidence. Under German law there is absolute protection of conversations between individuals in intimate relationships as a result of the protection of core privacy.

Beta This is a new way of showing guidance - your feedback will help us improve it. In considering the evidence needed to ensure a conviction, you should be concerned with:. Evidence of whatever type must be both relevant and admissible.

Evidence (law)

The aim of this article is to analyse some aspects of the law of evidence provided for by the rules applicable to proceedings before the International Criminal Court ICC.

Cookies on GOV.UK

По своей природе математики-криптографы - неисправимые трудоголики, поэтому существовало неписаное правило, что по субботам они отдыхают, если только не случается нечто непредвиденное. Взломщики шифров были самым ценным достоянием АНБ, и никто не хотел, чтобы они сгорали на работе. Сьюзан посмотрела на корпус ТРАНСТЕКСТА, видневшийся справа. Шум генераторов, расположенных восемью этажами ниже, звучал сегодня в ее ушах необычайно зловеще. Сьюзан не любила бывать в шифровалке в неурочные часы, поскольку в таких случаях неизменно чувствовала себя запертой в клетке с гигантским зверем из научно-фантастического романа.

5 comments

  • Steve G. 26.04.2021 at 03:05

    Download Introduction to Criminal Evidence and Court Procedure free book PDF Author: Julian R Hanley Pages: ISBN: Format: Epub.

    Reply
  • Heloise S. 28.04.2021 at 14:02

    Can the code of criminal procedure that has governed us, pass the human rights test? establish in a detailed law, the right to trial by jury for the criminal and civil cases in system, the evidence depends on the parties, who undertake to present The introduction of this arrangement into the Venezuelan system chiefly.

    Reply
  • Matilda C. 02.05.2021 at 19:41

    Classic christianity bob george pdf download partes de un motor electrico de corriente directa pdf

    Reply
  • Medoro P. 03.05.2021 at 14:13

    2 Criminal procedure. • Prescribes permissible methods of subjecting an individual to courts of criminal jurisdiction. • Pre-trial procedures (eg, arrest, evidence.

    Reply
  • Meinard P. 04.05.2021 at 14:41

    Tribunals. He also lectures in Criminal Evidence and European Criminal Procedure at International Criminal Court (hereinafter "ICC") procedural system​, in it up to the prosecutor and the defense to introduce the relevant evidence and ), rcthi.org docs/Resolutions/RC-ResENG.​pdf. In.

    Reply

Leave a reply

About author

Brigitte B.

This guidance is based on the Criminal Justice Act and the Police evidence is admissible (allowed to be used) in court and when it can be excluded​. all parties involved in the court proceedings must agree it can be admitted In practice this means the prosecution can introduce evidence which.