Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
For evidence to be admissible, it must tend to prove or disprove some fact at issue in the proceeding. [2] However, if the utility of this evidence is outweighed by its tendency to cause the fact finder to disapprove of the party it is introduced against for some unrelated reason, it is not admissible.
An example of inadmissible evidence is that the prosecution generally cannot present character evidence, such as old convictions for unrelated crimes. Courts have ruled that while past criminal behavior may have probative value (because it increases the probability of future criminal behavior) such evidence is too prejudicial to be allowed, as ...
Furthermore, the fact that ESI is admissible for one purpose does not automatically mean that it is also admissible for another purpose. In the case of Lorraine v. Markel, the evidence meets the requirements in these rules as it helps in determining the scope of the arbitration agreement. See also United States v. Safavian on admissibility of e ...
Baron Parke held that conduct consistent with a belief in a fact is hearsay when offered to prove the existence of that fact. The approach taken by Federal Rules of Evidence 801(a) does not yield the same result, as it requires that there be an intention to assert, which was absent from the "statement" in Wright v. Doe d. Tatham.
Evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g., oral or written statements, such as an affidavit), exhibits (e.g., physical objects), documentary material, or demonstrative evidence, which are admissible (i.e., allowed to be considered by the trier of fact, such as jury) in a judicial or administrative proceeding (e.g., a court of law).
For example, in a DUI case, the prosecutor may not admit evidence of a prior instance of driving impaired to show that the defendant acted in conformity and drove impaired on the day he is charged with doing so. However such evidence may be admissible if the defense has argued the defendant had no knowledge driving impaired was a crime.
Mr Justice O’Hara was told by a Crown lawyer that his determination would be pivotal to the prosecution case proceeding.
Under the common law, such evidence was at one time considered hearsay - a statement made out of court being introduced to prove the truth of the statement - and was not admissible except to rebut the testimony of an opposing expert witness. There were four ways to introduce such evidence: [citation needed]