Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision.
The case law that establishes this is Briginshaw v Briginshaw, which is the fifth most cited decision of Australia's High Court. [43] The case has since been incorporated into the uniform evidence law. [44] The Briginshaw principle was articulated by Dixon in that case in these terms: [45]
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that set the standard for involuntary commitment for treatment by raising the burden of proof required to commit persons for psychiatric treatment from the usual civil burden of proof of "preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence".
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997), discussed the limitation on admitting relevant evidence set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Under this rule, otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or considerations of undue delay ...
The burden of proof then falls on the prosecution to produce evidence to support their position. In such a case, a legal burden will always rest on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defence. A legal burden is determined by substantive law, rests upon one party and never shifts. [5]
First adopted in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence codify the evidence law that applies in United States federal courts. [1] In addition, many states in the United States have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules.
While the case related to divorce law, it also served to confirm that the balance of probabilities is the applicable standard of proof in all civil proceedings, subject to statute. Prior to Briginshaw , due to the state of the law in England at the time, Australian law regarding the onus of proof in divorce cases "was a little confused". [ 4 ]
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), is a Supreme Court case involving the burden of proof for the revocation of parental rights.The case arose when the Ulster County, New York, Department of Social Services sought to revoke John Santosky II and Annie Santosky's parental rights to their three children.