Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (sometimes shortened to ECREE), [1] also known as the Sagan standard, is an aphorism popularized by science communicator Carl Sagan. He used the phrase in his 1979 book Broca's Brain and the 1980 television program Cosmos .
First adopted in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence codify the evidence law that applies in United States federal courts. [1] In addition, many states in the United States have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules.
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 dictum appears in Hitchens's 2007 book God Is Not Great: How religion poisons everything. [3]: 150, 258 The term "Hitchens's razor" itself first appeared (as "Hitchens' razor") in an online forum in October 2007, and was used by atheist blogger Rixaeton in December 2010, and popularised by, among others, evolutionary biologist and atheist activist Jerry Coyne after Hitchens died in ...
Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard. [ 2 ] While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms , require mathematical or strictly logical proofs , the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context ...
A legal burden is determined by substantive law, rests upon one party and never shifts. [5] The satisfaction of the evidential burden has sometimes been described as "shifting the burden of proof", a label which has been criticized because the burden placed on a defendant is not the legal burden of proof resting on the prosecution. [6]
This led to the classic articulation of the mere evidence rule, which stated that the Fourth Amendment allowed only search and seizure of instrumentalities, fruits of the crime, and contraband, and that mere evidence could not be searched or seized. [4] The mere evidence rule has been praised as a valuable protection of individual privacy.
The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to evidence law in the United States: Evidence law in the United States – sets forth the areas of contention that generally arise in the presentation of evidence in trial proceedings in the U.S.