[tp widget="default/tpw_default.php"]

Tag: what is fact in evidence law

what is fact in evidence law

what is fact in evidence law插图

Existing thing
#evidencelawnotes #ballb Fact: The term ‘fact ‘means anexisting thing. the object of the sense. Right and liabilities in a judicial proceeding emerge out of facts.

What is the meaning of evidence in law?

Evidence, in law, any of the material items or assertions of fact that may be submitted to a competent tribunal as a means of ascertaining the truth of any alleged matter of fact under investigation before it. To the end that court decisions are to be based on truth founded on evidence, a primary

What is the difference between facts and evidence in law?

This is the main difference between facts and evidence. Evidence is generally of two types, namely, documental evidence and factual evidence. The decision of the court is always based on documental evidence. You need to have factual evidence to disprove it.

Do you need to have factual evidence to disprove it?

You need to have factual evidence to disprove it. On the main difference between facts and evidence is that evidence can be easily destroyed. This is because of the fact that evidence lacks strength and cannot be proved authentically.

What is a fact in issue in law?

Facts in issue are the central contentions upon which a dispute is centered. They are the crux of the argument, the focal point of the dispute, the hole in the doughnut. The Evidence Act provides for the definition of a fact in issue in s. 258 (1).

What is the significance of the first witnesses?

They stood as guarantees for his oath but never gave any testimony about the facts. The significance of these first witnesses is seen in the use of the German word Zeuge, which now means “witness” but originally meant “drawn in.”. The witnesses were, in fact, “drawn in” to perform a legal act as instrumental witnesses.

What was the formal theory of evidence that grew out of this hierarchical evaluation?

The formal theory of evidence that grew out of this hierarchical evaluation left no option for the judge: in effect, he was required to be convinced after the designated number of witnesses had testified concordantly. A distinction was made between complete, half, and lesser portions of evidence, evading the problem posed by such a rigid system of evaluation. Since interrogation of witnesses was secret, abuses occurred on another level. These abuses were nourished by the notion that the confession was the best kind of evidence and that reliable confessions could be obtained by means of torture.

What was the appeal to supernatural powers?

The appeal to supernatural powers was, of course, not evidence in the modern sense but an ordeal in which God was appealed to as the highest judge. The judges of the community determined what different kinds of ordeals were to be suffered, and frequently the ordeals involved threatening the accused with fire, a hot iron, or drowning. It may be that a certain awe associated with the two great elements of fire and water made them appear preeminently suitable for dangerous tests by which God himself was to pass on guilt or innocence. Trial by battle had much the same origin. To be sure, the powerful man relied on his strength, but it was also assumed that God would be on the side of right.

Why were community witnesses drawn in?

Nevertheless, together with community witnesses, they paved the way for the more rational use of evidence.

What is proof in law?

Evidence, in law, any of the material items or assertions of fact that may be submitted to a competent tribunal as a means of ascertaining the truth of any alleged matter of fact under investigation before it. To the end that court decisions are to be based on truth founded on evidence, …

When did ordeals end?

By the 13th century, ordeals were no longer used, though the custom of trial by battle lasted until the 14th and 15th centuries. The judicial machinery destroyed by dropping these sources of evidence could not be replaced by the oath of purgation alone.

What are the characteristics of the early law of evidence?

Characteristic features of the law of evidence in earlier cultures were that no distinction was made between civil and criminal matters or between fact and law and that rational means of evidence were either unknown or little used. In general, the accused had to prove his innocence.

What is Evidence Law?

Evidence law is the branch of law concerned with the rules and methods by which evidence is admitted and used in a legal trial. These rules set out what type of evidence can be admitted for consideration by a judge or jury in a trial. Evidence law also concerns the type of objections that can be raised to certain evidence being admitted, such as hearsay, illegally-obtained evidence, or a privilege that prevents the evidence in question from being admissible at trial.

What is BarPrepHero Premium?

BarPrepHero Premium offers the most complete collection of real bar exam questions licensed directly from NCBE (the organization that writes the exam).

What is exculpatory evidence?

Exculpatory evidence is any evidence that tends to show that a criminal defendant is not guilty. This can include an alibi or forensic evidence that does not belong to the defendant. Exculpatory evidence is required to be disclosed to the defense by prosecutors if the prosecutor comes across such evidence.

What is anecdotal evidence?

Anecdotal evidence is evidence that is presented in the form of a story. This is usually given as testimony by someone who is testifying in a trial.

What is circumstantial evidence?

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inferential leap to make a conclusion. It does not directly establish the existence of a fact, but makes an implication that the fact exists. This type of evidence includes fingerprints at the scene of a crime or a witness sighting of somebody near the area of a where a crime took place.

What can a law professor teach?

Law professors can teach basic evidence law to law students, as well as more advanced type of evidence classes. In addition to teaching, law professors write and get published frequently. Someone who wants to be a law professor would gain valuable experience by working on their school’s law journal, being a competitive brief writer, or getting published in a legal journal. It is also a great addition to one’s resume to help a professor or attorney with a publication they are working on.

What is statistical evidence?

Statistical evidence is evidence that uses statistics to present a proposition or hypothesis. This includes statistics or statistical studies of all kinds.

What is the difference between factual and documental evidence?

You need to have factual evidence to disprove it. On the main difference between facts and evidence is that evidence can be easily destroyed.

Is fact the same as evidence?

They are generally understood as one and the same thing to an untrained litigant, but strictly speaking they are different. Fact is a truth that can be proven. On the other hand evidence is something that is told by someone. It has to be accepted only on belief. There cannot be truth in all evidences.

Can scientific facts be destroyed?

Scientific facts are all proved and hence can never be destroyed by any means. This is mainly due to the fact that fact is characterized by truth whereas evidence is characterized by falsehood. Evidence is information helpful in forming judgment or a conclusion. Remember it is only information that can be either true or false.

How is probative value measured?

The probative value of E is measured by the difference between the probability of H given E (the posterior probability) and the probability of H absent E (the prior probability) (Friedman 1986; James 1941: 699).

Why is the requirement of plus value important?

As Wigmore sees it, the requirement of “plus value” guards against the jury “being satisfied by matters of slight value, capable to being exa ggerated by prejudice and hasty reasoning” (Wigmore 1983b: 969, cf. 1030–1031). Opponents of Wigmore acknowledge that there may be sound policy reasons for excluding evidence of low probative value. Receiving the evidence at the trial might raise a multiplicity of issues, incur too much time and expense, confuse the jurors or produce undue prejudice in their mind. When the judge excludes evidence for any of these reasons, and the judge has the discretion to do so in many countries, the evidence is excluded despite it being relevant (e.g., United States’ Federal Rule of Evidence 403). Relevance is a relation between facts and the aforesaid reasons for exclusion are extrinsic to that relation; they are grounded in considerations such as limitation of judicial resources and jury psychology. The notion of “plus value” confuses relevance with extraneous considerations (James 1941; Trautman 1952).

What is the definition of evidence?

The term “evidence” can, secondly, refer to a proposition of fact that is established by evidence in the first sense. [ 5] This is sometimes called an “evidential fact”. That the accused was at or about the scene of the crime at the relevant time is evidence in the second sense of his possible involvement in the crime. But the accused’s presence must be proved by producing evidence in the first sense. For instance, the prosecution may call a witness to appear before the court and get him to testify that he saw the accused in the vicinity of the crime at the relevant time. Success in proving the presence of the accused (the evidential fact) will depend on the fact-finder’s assessment of the veracity of the witness and the reliability of his testimony. (The fact-finder is the person or body responsible for ascertaining where the truth lies on disputed questions of fact and in whom the power to decide on the verdict vests. The fact-finder is also called “trier of fact” or “judge of fact”. Fact-finding is the task of the jury or, for certain types of cases and in countries without a jury system, the judge.) Sometimes the evidential fact is directly accessible to the fact-finder. If the alleged knife used in committing the crime in question (a form of “real evidence”) is produced in court, the fact-finder can see for himself the shape of the knife; he does not need to learn of it through the testimony of an intermediary.

What is evidence in law?

(“Adducing evidence” is the legal term for presenting or producing evidence in court for the purpose of establishing proof.) This meaning of evidence is reflected in the definitional section of the Indian Evidence Act (Stephen 1872: 149). [ 3] When lawyers use the term “evidence” in this way, they have in mind what epistemologists would think of as “objects of sensory evidence” (Haack 2004: 48). Evidence, in this sense, is divided conventionally into three main categories: [ 4] oral evidence (the testimony given in court by witnesses), documentary evidence (documents produced for inspection by the court), and “real evidence”; the first two are self-explanatory and the third captures things other than documents such as a knife allegedly used in committing a crime.

Why is relevance a logical concept?

The law distinguishes between questions of law and questions of fact. An issue of relevance poses a question of law that is for the judge to decide and not the jury, and so far as relevance is defined in legal sources (for example, in Federal Rule of Evidence 401 mentioned above), the judge must pay heed to the legal definition. But legal definitions of relevance are invariably very broad. Relevance is said to be a logical, and non-legal, concept in the sense that in answering a question of relevance and in applying the definition of relevance, the judge has necessarily to rely on extra-legal resources and is not bound by legal precedents. Returning to Federal Rule of Evidence 401, it states generally that evidence is relevant if “it has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence”. In deciding whether the evidence sought to be adduced does have this tendency, the judge has to look outside the law. Thayer was most insistent on this. As he put it, “ [t]he law furnishes no test of relevancy. For this, it tacitly refers to logic and general experience” (Thayer 1898: 265). That the accused’s favorite color is blue is, barring extraordinary circumstances, irrelevant to the question of his intention to commit theft. It is not the law that tells us so but “logic and general experience”. On Thayer’s view, the law does not control or regulate the assessment of relevance; it assumes that judges are already in possession of the (commonsense) resources to undertake this assessment.

What does it mean when a testimony is not pertinent?

To say that testimony is not pertinent, is to say that it is foreign to the case, has no connection with it, and does not serve to prove the fact in question; in a word, it is to say, that it is not evidence.

What is a factual proposition?

A factual proposition (in Latin, factum probans) is evidence in the third sense only if it can serve as a premise for drawing an inference (directly or indirectly) to a matter that is material to the case ( factum probandum ) (see section 2.2 below for the concept of materiality).

What determines a Fact in Issue?

The facts in issue in any proceeding are determined by two major factors. These are:

What is substantive law?

The substantive law is usually the particular area of law upon which the dispute is founded. For instance, where the dispute is criminal in nature and centered on Theft, the substantive law would be the applicable code that provides for the offence of Theft. Those things/ingredients which constitute the offence of Theft are expected …

What is the dispute bordering on theft?

For instance, where the dispute borders on Theft, and the Charge reads that the defendant is alleged to have taken property that did not belong to him at a particular time, place and on a particular date, the day, time and place alleged become facts in issue and must be proved by the prosecution.

What is the fact in issue in civil cases?

In civil cases though, the fact in issue is whatever is claimed by one party and controverted by the other. Once a party claims a fact and the other accepts or fails to controvert it, such fact is no more in issue.

What is the law of evidence?

The Law of Evidence, in all its complex glory, naturally revolves around two cardinal things: facts and proof. It is these two that combine to form evidence, which the court may or may not accept as showing the merit or otherwise of a party’s case. Where the court believes the facts shown by a party in any proceeding exist or when it is convinced …

What is the Nigerian Evidence Act?

The Nigerian Evidence Act, in its s. 1, provides for these important facts that must be proved. They are facts in issue and facts declared relevant under the Act.

What is the primary process of a civil case?

In a civil dispute, these documents would be called pleadings and they ordinarily consist of the statements of claim and defence, as well as whatever process was used to institute the action e.g. writ of summons, originating summons, petition etc.