Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
For evidence to be admissible, it must tend to prove or disprove some fact at issue in the proceeding. [2] However, if the utility of this evidence is outweighed by its tendency to cause the fact finder to disapprove of the party it is introduced against for some unrelated reason, it is not admissible.
The best evidence rule has its origins in the 18th century case Omychund v Barker (1780) 1 Atk, 21, 49; 26 ER 15, 33. Wherein Lord Harwicke stated that no evidence was admissible unless it was "the best that the nature of the case will allow."
Moseneke J's judgment also supports a distinction between an inference as to guilt and the effect of late disclosure on the weight to be accorded the alibi evidence. The latter is simply treated as an unavoidable consequence of adversarial proceedings: Late disclosure precludes the prosecution from properly investigating the alibi defence.
Some rules that affect the admissibility of evidence are nonetheless considered to belong to other areas of law. These include the exclusionary rule of criminal procedure , which prohibits the admission in a criminal trial of evidence gained by unconstitutional means, and the parol evidence rule of contract law , which prohibits the admission ...
Admissibility of (generalized) Bayes rules [ edit ] According to the complete class theorems, under mild conditions every admissible rule is a (generalized) Bayes rule (with respect to some prior π ( θ ) {\displaystyle \pi (\theta )\,\!} —possibly an improper one—that favors distributions θ {\displaystyle \theta \,\!} where that rule ...
A hospital doctor, who was accused of sexual misconduct after talking to female patients in a "hypnotic way", has been ordered to face a second medical tribunal hearing.
The prosecution bears onus of showing admissibility, [121] but only on a balance of probabilities. [121] This is in contrast to the normal onus to show admissibility beyond reasonable a doubt. The statute, in other words, has lowered the onus. This onus is of doubtful constitutionality.
Spontaneity is established by the declarant's demeanor, time lapse, and content of the statement. Declarant's appearance of calmness at time statement lessens admissibility. Time lapse between the startling event and the statement is a factor for both admissibility and weight.