If you ever have had to visit court, I am sure you must have thought about what evidence can be used in court. In simple words, evidence is the information that you can use in court in order to persuade the judiciary to make the order you’ve asked for. It is the judge who then decides what evidence is or isn’t worthy to be presented in court. When an information is permitted by the judge to be presented in court, it is called admitting the evidence. This implies that the judge will consider the evidence while making the decision.
Evidence assumes a significant function in criminal cases all over New York. When there is sufficient authentic proof present for a situation, it can help convict a suspect of wrongdoing. When there isn’t sufficient proof, the jury may restore a not liable decision.
Reasoning with the help of evidence and providing proof might be a characteristic that is shared in law as well as in other contexts. However, there are still certain aspects to how evidence is dealt with in law that are only defined by this field.
This article tries to identify the various sides of evidence in legal discourse. We usually wonder what lawyers are alluding to when they mention evidence. What do they actually have in mind? The idea of legal evidence is another important way to look at proof, but only if it is from the angle of what can be included as evidence in law. What are the circumstances that law dictates and how can they be met for something to be received as evidence by the court? This article will discuss it all.
Table of Contents
- 1 What Is Evidence?
- 2 How Can One Present Evidence In Court?
- 3 What Are The Rules Of Evidence?
- 4 Introduction To The Law Of Evidence
- 5 Types Of Evidence
- 6 Conclusion
What Is Evidence?
As far as law is concerned, evidence is any material item or declaration of facts and figures that can be proposed to a competent tribunal as a means of confirming the truth of any supposed matter of fact under investigation prior to it. In simpler words, it is the information you use in court to convince the judge to make the order you’ve asked for. The judge decides what evidence can or can’t be presented in court.
The fact that court choices are to be founded on truth established on the basis of valid evidence, is an essential obligation of courts along with the fact that they need to lead legitimate procedures to hear and analyze that evidence. The purported law of evidence is made up generally of procedural guidelines concerning the evidence and introduction of realities, in the case of including the declaration of witnesses, the introduction of archives or physical articles, or the statement of an unfamiliar law. The numerous guidelines of proof that have advanced under various legitimate frameworks have primarily been established on understanding and formed by differing lawful prerequisites of what comprises permissible and adequate evidence.
How Can One Present Evidence In Court?
There are three basic ways that sum up presenting evidence in court. These are:
Witnesses: sworn witnesses (including yourself) can give factual information that they have direct knowledge of.
Documents: documents can be brought as evidence by you or any other witness.
Expert opinion: a properly qualified expert can give an opinion either by joining court themselves or submitting a written report.
What Are The Rules Of Evidence?
The rules of evidence were created more than a few centuries ago and were then developed over time. They depend on the guidelines from Anglo-American customary law brought to the New World by early pioneers. The objective is to be just to both the individuals/parties involved in the case, and not permitting the raising of claims without a premise in provable facts. They are often castigated as a legal formality, however is still a significant aspect of the framework for accomplishing a fair result.
Maybe the most significant of the rules of evidence is that, typically, hearsay declaration is forbidden. However, there are numerous exemptions to this standard. The Federal Rules of Evidence oversee the acceptability of proof in government preliminaries. Nevertheless, state rules of proof are to a great extent displayed after the bureaucratic principles.
The major rules of evidence are as follows:
Relevant and admissible evidence
According to this rule, evidence can be proven by calling witnesses, producing documents, or producing material things as evidence. Moreover, while analyzing evidence, its relevance, admissibility and weightage should all be considered. Regardless of the type of evidence, it should be relevant and admissible. Relevance of evidence is usually shown if it logically proves or disproves some factual information in the prosecution. Admissible evidence is if it relates to the facts in question, or to the situation that makes those facts plausible or implausible. Moreover, it needs to have been properly obtained.
Order of giving evidence
As soon as the oath or affirmation is taken by the witness, they are:
- examined in chief: Here, the witness is not to be asked any question that could be leading. Such questions are the ones that can direct a witness into giving a specicifc kind of response. The only questions that are permitted are the `yes’ or `no’ kind.
- cross-examined: In such an examination, leading questions are allowed, along with questions about the witnesses character. The only time this isn’t allowed is in relation to defendants in restricted situations.
- re-examined: Leading questions are not permitted. This examination only asks witnesses to explain matters raised in the cross-examination.
This takes place for every prosecution and each defence witness in turn.
A witness ought not be needed to address any question in court where the appropriate response would in general implicate the witness, uncover interchanges between the witness and their solicitor or any advice made to offer or acquire legitimate guidance. Lastly, it should not unveil HSE’s interior operations in a manner that would influence its ability to do its tasks by and large.
A court will take judicial notice of facts that are of common knowledge that to need evidence for them would be absurd. If an Act does not clearly state otherwise, the court cannot take judicial notice of all Acts of Parliament.
Either the indictment or the respondent may concede facts recorded as a hard copy before a case comes to court or may concur affirmations at court. The “formal affirmation” is definitive proof of the facts conceded to, so no other proof on the issue should be brought. Verifiable confirmations might be made of any information of which oral proof might be given in any criminal hearings.
Regarding formal admissions the following points need to be kept in mind:
- Admissions made prior to a trial must be in writing, signed and approved by the defendant’s defence counsel or solicitor before or at the proceeding.
- Oral admissions need to be written down and signed unless the court orders otherwise.
- Oral admissions in the Crown Court need not be written down. The solicitor must make admissions on behalf of an individual defendant.
- An appropriate officer needs to sign admissions made by a body corporate.
- Admissions made by the defendant at any point prior to the court proceedings, must be certified by his/her solicitor.
Letters and form sections are part of a written formal admission. Moreover, during any proceeding or court appeal an admission can be withdrawn with the leave of the court.
The overall standard is that any announcement, other than one made by a witness while providing evidence in the hearings, is inadmissible as proof of the realities expressed. In any case, this standard possibly applies if the announcement is given as proof of reality of its contents. The standard applies to both oral and written articulations. The primary explanation behind the standard is that there is generally no chance to test whether the individual that offered the original statement is coming clean.
Witnesses should just give proof of facts that they saw themselves, and not proof of their supposition. Moreover, witnesses may offer proof of input as a method for passing on applicable realities seen by that witness. For instance, a declaration that an individual was drunk might be an advantageous method of portraying what the observer saw, heard or smelt which drove the person in question to shape that assessment. The court will permit such explanations as long as no extraordinary aptitude is fundamental. The court may require an expert opinion on issues outside of its experience. At the point when this need emerges, expert opinion is allowed. Such witnesses may offer an input upon realities that are either conceded or demonstrated in proof.
Introduction To The Law Of Evidence
As far as law school is concerned, Introduction to the Law of Evidence is an important course that is offered. It provides students with a full range of topics covered in courses pertaining to law of evidence. These topics are covered with expert clarity and depth. The context within which the law operates is brought to the forefront and the textbook maintains an engaging narrative with a strong emphasis on practical knowledge.
Integrated excerpts from key judgments and laws, as well as academic articles and books, help students to develop a deeper understanding of the field. Moreover, detailed analysis on these excerpts helps students to form the ability to read and critically evaluate case law effectively.
Student learning is further backed by various visual aids, including diagrams, flowcharts and tables, which illustrate how principles and provisions are associated with each other. They also further clarify the critical aspects of the law. Through latest technologies, students also have the most recent coverage of the law at their fingertips.
Types Of Evidence
There are various different kinds of evidence when it comes to law. The seven key types of evidence are listed below:
This is the kind of evidence that only comes from one source. e.g. DNA, bite marks, blood etc
This is when a particular object that is found as evidence can be classified in a group. e.g. jeans from Levi’s, skinny jeans etc
This is the evidence found in a very small amount. e.g small drop of blood, glass shard, hair, dust etc
This includes any material object that can prove to be effective in solving a crime. e.g. book, hammer, knife, nail, computer etc
This is when a witness gives his/her testimony under oath.
This occurs when an evidence cannot prove a fact but it does provide evidence of a controlled substance or driving under the influence.
This is evidence that relies on suggestion instead of personal knowledge and observation.
Providing proof in court can either make or break the entire court proceedings. It is important that the evidence a witness provides is credible and appropriate in order for the court to consider it. Through this article you now know all about what evidence is and what sort of evidence is to be given in a court.