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. Cohen suggests that the standard of proof should be understood entirely as a matter of weight of evidence, which he argues is a matter of how many tests or challenges a factual hypothesis faces in court. It accounts for the legal conclusion of fact in relation to a representation of inductive probability inspired by the works of writers such as Francis Bacon and J.S. Mill. Inductive probability works differently from classical probability theory. It is based on an inductive support for the generalization of common sense, which makes it possible to draw the relevant conclusion. The inductive support of generalization is graduated according to the number of tests it has passed, or in other words, according to its degree of resistance to falsification by relevant variables. The inductive probability of an argument is equal to the degree of reliability of the inductive support for the generalization that covers the argument. Direct evidence: evidence which, if believed, immediately supports the facts to be proved by it, without it being necessary to infer them; in particular: evidence of a fact offered by a witness whose knowledge of the case has been acquired through the use of his senses (such as sight or hearing), the circumstantial evidence in this entry does not compare the evidence: evidence presented that is insufficient to prove a particularly vital fact: a point of failure that insufficient evidence has been presented, to support the conclusion of all the debtor`s interest in the property at the time of bankruptcy.
The estate technically becomes the temporary legal owner of all of the debtor`s assets. Physical evidence: tangible evidence (as a weapon, document or visible injury) related in any way to the incident that led to said case, also real evidence comparing demonstrative evidence and witness statements in entry proceedings to obtain disclosure of evidence prior to trial. Demonic evidence: evidence in the form of objects (maps, diagrams or models) which have no probative value in themselves but which are used to illustrate and clarify the disputed facts; General: Physical evidence in this entry, also known as illustrative 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. According to Wigmore, the requirement of “added value” prevents the jury from being “satisfied with matters of little value which may be exaggerated by prejudice and hasty reasoning” (Wigmore 1983b:969, cf. 1030-1031).
Wigmore`s opponents admit that there may be good political reasons to exclude evidence of low probative value. Obtaining evidence at trial could raise a variety of issues, cause too much time and money, confuse jurors or create unreasonable harm in their minds. If the judge excludes evidence for any of these reasons, and the judge has the discretion to do so in many countries, the evidence is excluded even if it is relevant (e.g., U.S. Federal Rule of Evidence 403). Relevance is a link between the facts, and the above grounds for exclusion are outside this context; They are based on considerations such as limited legal resources and jury psychology. The concept of “value-added” confuses relevance with foreign considerations (James, 1941; Trautman, 1952). The legal classification of unsecured claims in the Insolvency Code, which determines the order in which unsecured claims are paid when there is not enough money to pay all unsecured claims in full. Some things relevant to a trial are so obvious that a court doesn`t need evidence to prove it – for example, that it`s dark outside at midnight, or that April 30, 1995 fell on a Sunday.
In order to avoid wasting a court`s time, the rules of evidence allow the courts to hear these issues; That is, accepting them as true without formal proof. Courts may automatically become aware of facts that are generally known to be true (e.g., gasoline is flammable) or facts that can be verified from reliable sources (e.g., Des Moines, Iowa, is in Polk County, which can be verified on a map). Of course, the courts are aware of the content of and within the laws of the United States. Interestingly, Stephen seemed to have admitted this. He acknowledged that a police officer or lawyer preparing a case would be negligent in turning his ears to hearsay. Hearsay is one of those facts that are “apparently relevant but not really relevant” (Stephen 1872:122; see also Stephen 1886:xi). By claiming that hearsay is irrelevant, Stephen seems to be simply stating the effect of the law: the law requires hearsay to be treated as irrelevant. He put forward various justifications for excluding hearsay evidence: its admissibility would be “a great temptation for lazy judges to be content with second-hand accounts” and would “open a great door to fraud,” so that “everyone would be at the mercy of people who might lie and whose testimony could neither be examined nor refuted” (Stephen 1872: 124–125). For its critics, these are reasons of policy and fairness, and it deserves to be clarified to inject such considerations into the concept of relevance.
Fourth, we have so far relied on oversimplified – 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. Evidence may only be presented in legal proceedings to prove a fact if the fact is relevant. Relevance is a relational concept. No facts are relevant in themselves; It is only relevant in relation to another fact. The term “likely” is often used to describe this relationship. We see two examples of this in the following known definitions. According to Stephen (1886:2, emphasis added): A legal procedure for dealing with the debt problems of individuals and corporations; in particular, a case filed under one of the chapters of title 11 of the United States Code. The Sentencing Reform Act 1984 abolished probation in favour of a particular penal system, in which the level of punishment is determined by penal directives. Now, without the possibility of parole, the court-imposed jail sentence is the actual time the person spends in prison.
The concept of relevance discussed in the previous section is commonly referred to as “logical relevance.” It is a somewhat misleading term: “Relevance is not a matter of logic, but depends on the facts” (Haack 2004: 46). In our previous example, the relevance of whether the defendant has type A blood obviously depends on the state of the world. Understanding that relevance is a probabilistic relationship, it is tempting to think that by describing relevance as “logical”, one subscribes to a theory of logical probabilities (cf. Franklin 2011). However, the term “logical relevance” was not originally coined with this connotation. In the medico-legal context, the term “logical” is vaguely used, referring to the set of basic beliefs or generalizations and the type of reasoning that judges and lawyers like to call “common sense” (MacCrimmon 2001-2002; Twining 2006: 334-335).