Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, character evidence is inadmissible in civil suits when being used as circumstantial evidence to prove that a person acted in conformity with their character; it is considered to be an unfair basis from which to attempt to prove that an individual behaved in a particular way on a particular occasion. [2]
Character When Relevant (46 to 50) Part 3 On Proof Chapter 3 Clauses 51 to 53 Facts Which Need Not Be Proved Chapter 4 Clauses 54 to 55 Of Oral Evidence Chapter 5 Clauses 56 to 93 Of Documentary Evidence (56 to 73) Public documents (74 to 77) Presumptions As To Documents(78 to 93) Chapter 6 Clauses 94 to 103
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.
The common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. [5] Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence ...
Documentary evidence is any evidence that is, or can be, introduced at a trial in the form of documents, as distinguished from oral testimony.Documentary evidence is most widely understood to refer to writings on paper (such as an invoice, a contract or a will), but the term can also apply to any media by which information can be preserved, such as photographs; a medium that needs a mechanical ...
Many laws create a paradox by placing the burden of proof of good moral character on the applicant while such a proof, but not the law, necessitates that the evaluators assess the beliefs and values of the applicant. [12] Good moral character is the opposite of moral turpitude, another legal concept in the United States used in similar instances.
The enactment and adoption of the Indian Evidence Act was a path-breaking judicial measure introduced in India, which changed the entire system of concepts pertaining to admissibility of evidences in the Indian courts of law.
The court found that none of the defence's grounds for appeal amounted to lawful grounds for a final appeal. Nevertheless, the court examined the case ex officio, and found procedural illegalities in the lower courts' judgments (regarding the exclusion of evidence from testimony, as hearsay). As a result, the court quashed the conviction on ...