Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Lack of foundation: the evidence lacks testimony as to its authenticity or source. More prejudicial than probative: Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, a judge has the discretion to exclude evidence if "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury."
John Locke (1632–1704), the likely originator of the term.. Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance, [a] is an informal fallacy where something is claimed to be true or false because of a lack of evidence to the contrary.
Most recently in England and Wales, the Civil Evidence Act 1995, 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 ...
When there is insufficient supporting evidence to determine whether it is true or false, an accusation is described as "unsubstantiated" or "unfounded". Accusations that are determined to be false based on corroborating evidence can be divided into three categories: [2] A completely false allegation, in that the alleged events did not occur.
Generally, a statement from a court that a writ is allowed (i.e. granted); most commonly, a grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in reference to which the word is used equivalently to certiorari (q.v.) elsewhere. / ˌ æ l l oʊ k eɪ t ʊr / alter ego: another I A second identity living within a person. / ˌ ɒ l t ...
Suppression of evidence is a term used in the United States legal system to describe the lawful or unlawful act of preventing evidence from being shown in a trial. This could happen for several reasons. For example, if a judge believes that the evidence in question was obtained illegally, the judge can rule that it not be shown in court.
In Sagan's words, the expression is a critique of the "impatience with ambiguity" exhibited by appeals to ignorance. [2] Despite what the expression may seem to imply, a lack of evidence can be informative. For example, when testing a new drug, if no harmful effects are observed then this suggests that the drug is safe. [3]
Where a legal system would appear to require an impossible proof, the remedies are reversing the burden of proof, or giving additional rights to the individual facing the probatio diabolica. The devil's proof is the logical dilemma that while evidence will prove the existence of something, the lack of evidence fails to disprove it.