Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence contain the rules governing impeachment in US federal courts .
The uniform act provides that a state supreme court may answer questions of law certified to it by the United States Supreme Court, a court of appeals of the United States, a United States district court, or the highest appellate or intermediate appellate court of any other state.
Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position. [ 92 ] Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because ...
In different jurisdictions, appellate courts are also called appeals courts, courts of appeals, superior courts, or supreme courts. The specific procedures for appealing, including even whether there is a right of appeal from a particular type of decision, can vary greatly from state to state.
Erotema – rhetorical question; a question is asked to which an answer is not expected. [1] Ethos – a rhetorical appeal to an audience based on the speaker/writer's credibility. Ethopoeia – the act of putting oneself into the character of another to convey that person's feelings and thoughts more vividly.
Additionally, in some areas of substantive law, such as when a court is reviewing a First Amendment issue, an appellate court will use a standard of review called "independent review." [citation needed] The standard is somewhere in between de novo review and clearly erroneous review. Under independent review, an appellate court will reexamine ...
If the judge allows the expert to testify that there was a reason to explain away inconsistencies in the witness's testimony, this will most likely be grounds for an appeal, as in most cases evidence that only bolsters the credibility of a witness is not admissible.
For instance, the appeal to poverty is the fallacy of thinking that someone is more likely to be correct because they are poor. [16] When an argument holds that a conclusion is likely to be true precisely because the one who holds or is presenting it lacks authority, it is an "appeal to the common man". [17]