Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 evidence to be admissible enough to be admitted, the party proffering the evidence must be able to show that the source of the evidence makes it so. If evidence is in the form of witness testimony, the party that introduces the evidence must lay the groundwork for the witness's credibility and knowledge.
In United States law, the Frye standard, Frye test, or general acceptance test is a judicial test used in some U.S. state courts to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. It provides that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is admissible only when the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific ...
The Act moves some of the focus of hearsay evidence to weight, rather than admissibility, setting out considerations in assessing the evidence (set out in summary form): [16] Reasonableness of the party calling the evidence to have produced the original maker; Whether the original statement was made at or near the same time as the evidence it ...
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]
One of the most referenced rules in determining the admissibility of forensic hypnosis as evidence is the Frye Standard (1923). Frye set the precedent that scientific methods and theories must gain general acceptance to be considered admissible as evidence in court and concerned the use of systolic blood pressure for lie detection , another ...
Therefore, evidence is either relevant or it is not and if the evidence is not relevant then no further question arises about its admissibility. [28] However, logical relevance isn't sufficient to establish the potential admissibility of the evidence and is still possible for the evidence to be inadmissible.
The rules did not alter the law on admissibility of evidence, but became a code of best practice: it was assumed that statements given by a suspect in accordance with the Rules would be admissible in evidence. [3] The rules: allowed the police to question any person with a view to finding out whether, or by whom, an offence had been committed