Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A leading question is a question that suggests a particular answer and contains information the examiner is looking to have confirmed. [1] The use of leading questions in court to elicit testimony is restricted in order to reduce the ability of the examiner to direct or influence the evidence presented.
Image credits: LovePeaceHope-ish #6. A year out of law school, I once had a potential client who wanted me to sue Canada. Apparently, he could not get into the country due to his felony record.
In law, a colloquy is a routine, highly formalized conversation. [1] Conversations among the judge and lawyers (as opposed to testimony under oath) are colloquies.The term may be applied to the conversation that takes place when a defendant enters into a plea bargain and the judge is supposed to verify that the defendant understands that he is waiving his right to a jury trial.
Character evidence is a term used in the law of evidence to describe any testimony or document submitted for the purpose of proving that a person acted in a particular way on a particular occasion based on the character or disposition of that person.
Another incentive for attorneys to make sure that the text of a declaration precisely matches the declarant's recollection is that the witness may be subject to impeachment at trial if discrepancies between the declaration and any later testimony turn out to be significant. Another more practical drawback is the conservative nature of the law.
In law, a body of facts that directly supports the truth of an assertion without intervening inference. It is often exemplified by eyewitness testimony , [ 1 ] [ 2 ] which consists of a witness 's description of their reputed direct sensory experience of an alleged act without the presentation of additional facts.
Throughout an emotional day of testimony, Crumbley, 45 said she could not have stopped her son, Ethan Crumbley, who killed four people and injured seven others at Oxford High School on Nov. 30, 2021.
However, under Federal Rule of Evidence 801 and the minority of U.S. jurisdictions that have adopted this rule, a prior inconsistent statement may be introduced as evidence of the truth of the statement itself if the prior statement was given in live testimony and under oath as part of a formal hearing, proceeding, trial, or deposition. [2]