Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Maintaining a chain of custody is essential for the forensic scientist that is working on a specific criminal case. The documentation of evidence is key for maintaining a chain of custody because everything that is done to the piece of evidence must be listed and whoever came in contact with that piece of evidence is accountable for what ...
The reduction in the handling of the original evidence lessens the likelihood of deliberate tampering or accidental contamination and reduces chain of custody requirements and overheads. While the chain of custody stops with the presentation, accountability and responsibility remain until the evidence is disposed of.
Actus reus – the physical act of a crime, as opposed to mens rea, the criminal intent. [19] Administrative law – Affray – Arraignment – Arrest warrant – Attendant circumstances – Bail – Booking – Case law – Causation – Chain of custody – Citizen's arrest – civil law – Clearance rate – Common law – Concurrence ...
Most notably in the context of a criminal prosecution, an expert witness who evaluates or examines an item pertinent to an investigation or case evaluation may add an entry to a "chain of custody" document, [6] a form that contains the item's description, the time and date of release for all prior custodians of the item, and the time and date ...
The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury. [1] The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction.
trial court's erroneous deprivation of a criminal defendant's choice of counsel entitles him to reversal of his conviction Kansas v. Marsh: 548 U.S. 163 (2006) statute allowing the death penalty in cases where the aggravating and mitigating evidence are equal does not violate the Eighth Amendment: Randall v. Sorrell: 548 U.S. 230 (2006)
This form of privilege, restricting the admissibility into evidence of communications between spouses during a marriage, existed in English law from 1853 until it was abolished in 1968 (for civil cases) and in 1984 (for criminal cases). The existence of a communications privilege in the common law (i.e. in case law) is disputed.
On July 23, 2007, both the Plata and Coleman courts granted the plaintiff's motions and recommended that the cases be assigned to the same three-judge court. [8] The Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed and, on July 26, 2007, convened the instant three-judge district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284.