Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The exception in some instances allows for the introduction of evidence gathered during illegal searches, so long as a judge approved a search warrant, even if the warrant shouldn’t have been ...
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.
In carefully designed scientific experiments, null results can be interpreted as evidence of absence. [7] Whether the scientific community will accept a null result as evidence of absence depends on many factors, including the detection power of the applied methods, the confidence of the inference, as well as confirmation bias within the community.
Relevance, in the common law of evidence, is the tendency of a given item of evidence to prove or disprove one of the legal elements of the case, or to have probative value to make one of the elements of the case likelier or not.
The performance prong emphasizes that the attorney's performance must have been deficient at the time it was rendered, avoiding "the distorting effects of hindsight." [ 9 ] Attorneys therefore cannot be ineffective for failing to anticipate future developments in evidence reliability [ 10 ] or future changes in law.
Material evidence is important evidence that may serve to determine the outcome of a case. Exhibits include real evidence, illustrative evidence, demonstrative evidence, and documentary evidence. The type of preliminary evidence necessary to lay the proper foundation depends on the form and type of material evidence offered. [2]
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial.
The inevitable discovery doctrine was first adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams in 1984. [2] [3] In that case, Williams, the defendant, challenged the admissibility of evidence about the location and condition of the victim's body, given that it had been obtained from him in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.