Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Evidence and rules are used to decide questions of fact that are disputed, some of which may be determined by the legal burden of proof relevant to the case. Evidence in certain cases (e.g. capital crimes) must be more compelling than in other situations (e.g. minor civil disputes), which drastically affects the quality and quantity of evidence ...
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 ...
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (sometimes shortened to ECREE), [1] also known as the Sagan standard, is an aphorism popularized by science communicator Carl Sagan. He used the phrase in his 1979 book Broca's Brain and the 1980 television program Cosmos .
Different types of proceedings require parties to meet different burdens of proof, the typical examples being beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence, and preponderance of the evidence. Many jurisdictions have burden-shifting provisions, which require that if one party produces evidence tending to prove a certain point, the ...
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 ...
Proving a negative or negative proof may refer to: Proving a negative, in the philosophic burden of proof; Evidence of absence in general, such as evidence that there is no milk in a certain bowl; Modus tollens, a logical proof; Proof of impossibility, mathematics; Russell's teapot, an analogy: inability to disprove does not prove
Note that under California Evidence Code ("CEC") §§769, 770, and 1235, prior inconsistent statements may be used for both impeachment and as substantive evidence, even if they were not originally made under oath at a formal proceeding, as long as "the witness was so examined while testifying as to give him an opportunity to explain or to deny ...
[3] [1] By contrast, circumstantial evidence can help prove via inference whether an assertion is true, [4] such as forensics presented by an expert witness. In a criminal case , an eyewitness provides direct evidence of the actus reus if they testify that they witnessed the actual performance of the criminal event under question.