evidence

View more Law & Legal Issues videos

For more information on evidence, visit Britannica.com.

noun

1. That which confirms: attestation, authentication, confirmation, corroboration, demonstration, proof, substantiation, testament, testimonial, testimony, validation, verification, warrant. See true/false.
2. Something visible or evident that gives grounds for believing in the existence or presence of something else: badge, index, indication, indicator, manifestation, mark, note, sign, signification, stamp, symptom, token, witness. See show/hide.

verb

1. To make manifest or apparent: demonstrate, display, evince, exhibit, manifest, proclaim, reveal, show. See show/hide.
2. To establish as true or genuine: authenticate, bear out, confirm, corroborate, demonstrate, endorse, establish, prove, show, substantiate, validate, verify. See show/hide, support/oppose.
3. To assure the certainty or validity of: attest, authenticate, back (up), bear out, confirm, corroborate, justify, substantiate, testify (to), validate, verify, warrant. See support/oppose, true/false.

Definition: proof
Antonyms: contradiction, disproof, hearsay, refutation

v

Definition: prove
Antonyms: contradict, disprove, refute

That which raises or lowers the probability of a proposition. The central question of epistemology is the structure of this process and its ultimate rationale.

Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case. A system of rules and standards used to determine which facts may be admitted, and to what extent a judge or jury may consider those facts, as proof of a particular issue in a lawsuit.

Until 1975, the law of evidence was a creature of the common law: evidence rules in most jurisdictions were established by cases rather than by organized, official codifications. Legal scholars long pushed for legislation to provide uniformity and predictability to the evidentiary issues that arise during litigation. Following a lengthy campaign begun by the American Law Institute, which drafted its Model Rules of Evidence in 1942, and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Rules, which drafted the Uniform Rules of Evidence in 1953, Congress in 1975 adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Federal Rules of Evidence are the official rules in federal court proceedings. Most states now also have codified rules of evidence based on the federal rules. Both state and federal rules of evidence serve as a guide for judges and attorneys so that they can determine whether to admit evidence — that is, whether to allow evidence to be observed by the judge or jury making factual conclusions in a trial.

One important benchmark of admissibility is relevance. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states, in part, "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided." The goal of this rule is to allow parties to present all the evidence that bears on the issue to be decided, and to keep out all evidence that is immaterial or lacks probative value. Evidence offered to help prove something that is not at issue is immaterial. For example, the fact that a defendant attends church every week is immaterial, and thus irrelevant, to a charge of running a red light. Probative value is a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. For instance, evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder would normally be irrelevant because people who eat spaghetti are not more or less likely to commit murder compared with other people. However, if spaghetti sauce was found at the murder scene, the fact that the defendant ate spaghetti that day would have probative value and would thus be relevant evidence.

Witnesses

The most common form of evidence is the testimony of witnesses. A witness can be a person who actually viewed the crime or other event at issue. Or a witness can be a person with other relevant information— someone who heard a dog bark near the time of a murder, saw an allegedly injured plaintiff lifting weights the day after his accident, or shared an office with the defendant and can describe her character and personality. Any competent person can testify as a witness provided the testimony meets other requirements, such as relevancy.

The Federal Rules of Evidence contain very broad competence requirements. To testify, a witness must swear or affirm that she or he will testify truthfully; possess personal knowledge of the subject matter of the testimony; have the physical and mental capacity to accurately perceive, record, and recollect fact impressions; and possess the capacity to understand questions and communicate understandably, with an interpreter if necessary. When an issue of state law is being determined, the state rules of evidence govern the competency of a witness. States that have not adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence may have other grounds for incompetency, such as mental incapacity, immaturity, religious beliefs, and criminal convictions. The Federal Rules of Evidence and most jurisdictions state that jurors and presiding judges are not competent to testify in the case before them.

To be admissible, testimony must be limited to matters of which the witness has personal knowledge, meaning matters the witness learned about using any of his or her senses. Second, the witness must declare under oath or affirmation that the testimony will be truthful. The purpose of this requirement is to "awaken the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to [be truthful]" (Fed. R. Evid. 603). The oath or affirmation requirement also serves as a ground for perjury if the witness does not testify truthfully. Although the oath frequently invokes the name of God, the witness need not possess any religious beliefs; a secular affirmation is sufficient.

Witnesses may be called to testify by any party to the lawsuit. The party calling a witness to testify generally questions the witness first, in what is known as direct examination. The judge may exercise reasonable control over the questioning of witnesses in order to "(1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect the witnesses from harassment, or undue embarrassment" (rule 611(a)). Thus, the judge may prevent a witness from rambling in a narrative fashion, and may require an attorney to ask specific questions in order to quickly and effectively ascertain the truth.

The federal rules and most jurisdictions discourage the use of leading questions on direct examination. These are questions designed to elicit a particular answer by suggesting it. For example, the question "Didn't the defendant then aim the gun at the police officer?" is a leading question, and normally would not be permitted on direct examination. By contrast, "What did the defendant do next?" is a nonleading question and would be permitted on direct examination. In most cases, questions that can be answered with either "Yes" or "No" are considered to be leading questions. Courts generally will permit leading questions during direct examination if the witness is adverse or hostile toward the questioning party.

Leading questions are permitted, and are common practice, during cross-examination. Once a party conducts a direct examination, the opposing party is entitled to cross-examine the same witness. The scope of questions asked during cross-examination is limited to the subject matter covered during direct examination, and any issues concerning the witness's credibility. Attorneys use cross-examination for many purposes, including eliciting from a witness favorable facts; having the witness modify, explain, or qualify unfavorable versions of disputed facts elicited during direct examination; and impeaching, or discrediting, the witness.

If a witness is a lay witness (not testifying as an expert), the witness generally may testify as to facts and not as to opinions or inferences, unless the opinions or inferences are "(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue" (rule 701). For example, a witness may not testify that she smelled marijuana unless she can sufficiently establish that she knows what marijuana smells like. Lay witnesses commonly testify about such things as the speed a car was going or someone's approximate age, but these types of inferences are less likely to be permitted the more closely they address critical issues in the case.

"If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise" (rule 702). The admissibility of expert testimony hinges on whether such testimony would help the judge or jury, and whether the witness is properly qualified as an expert. Expert witnesses may, and usually do, testify in the form of an opinion. The opinion must be supported by an adequate foundation of relevant facts, data, or opinions, rather than conjecture. Thus, an expert frequently relies on firsthand or secondhand observations of facts, data, or opinions perceived prior to trial, or presented at trial during testimony or during a hypothetical question posed by an attorney. Courts do not require experts to have first- hand knowledge of facts, data, or opinions because experts in the field do not always rely on such firsthand knowledge. For instance, physicians routinely make diagnoses based on information from several sources, such as hospital records, X-ray reports, and opinions from other physicians.

When an expert offers a scientific fact as substantive evidence or as the basis of his or her opinion, the court must determine the reliability of the scientific fact by looking at such things as the validity of the underlying scientific principle, the validity of the technique applying that principle, adherence to proper procedures, the condition of instruments used in the process, and the qualifications of those who perform the test and interpret the results. Issues frequently arise over such scientific tools and techniques as lie detectors, DNA testing, and hypnosis. Some scientific tests, such as drug tests, radar, and paternity blood tests, generally are accepted as being reliable, and their admissibility may be provided for by statute. See also DNA evidence; forensic science; polygraph.

Hearsay

The credibility of any witness's testimony depends upon three factors: (1) whether the witness accurately perceived what she or he described, (2) whether the witness retained an accurate memory of the perception, and (3) whether the witness's narration accurately conveys the perception. To be allowed to testify, the witness generally must take an oath, must be personally present at the trial, and must be subjected to cross-examination. These conditions promote the factors that lend themselves to the witness's credibility. The rule against hearsay further bolsters the oath, personal presence, and cross-examination requirements.

Hearsay is a statement, made out of court, offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The statement may be oral or written, or it may be nonverbal conduct intended as an assertion, such as pointing to a crime suspect in a police lineup. The act of pointing in response to a request for identification is the same as stating, "He did it." Not all nonverbal conduct is intended as an assertion, of course. For example, a person usually opens an umbrella to stay dry, not to make the assertion, "It is raining."

Sometimes, statements made out of court are not hearsay because they are not offered for the purpose of proving what they assert. For example: A man who claims that a collision between his car and a truck rendered him unconscious files a lawsuit against the truck driver for negligence. The truck driver wishes to introduce as evidence a statement the man made seconds after the accident: "I knew I should have gotten my brakes fixed; they haven't been working for weeks!" If the purpose of offering the statement is only to prove that the man was conscious and talking following the accident, the statement is not hearsay. However, if the statement is offered to prove that the man's brakes were not working and therefore he caused the accident, then the statement is offered for its truth and is hearsay.

The Federal Rules of Evidence state generally that hearsay is not admissible evidence. The reason is that it is impractical, and in most cases simply impossible, to cross-examine the declarant of an out-of-court statement, or to have the declarant take an oath prior to making the statement. Thus, the credibility of an out-of-court statement cannot easily be ascertained. But the hearsay doctrine is extremely complex. Under the federal rules, for example, most admissions of guilt are not considered hearsay and are therefore admissible, even though they might be stated out of court and then offered as evidence. The federal rules list more than twenty-five exceptions to the general hearsay prohibition. These exceptions apply to circumstances believed to produce trustworthy assertions.

Some exceptions to the hearsay rule require that the person who made the statement be unavailable to testify at trial. One example of this is when a person who is mortally wounded makes a statement before dying about the cause of her death. Under this hearsay exception, the victim's statement assigning guilt or causation is made admissible because the victim is not available to testify at trial and the need for the information is given greater weight than the fear that she lied. Some have argued that the dying declaration exception exists at least in part because of the belief that persons would not waste their last breaths to utter a falsehood. One federal court commented, "More realistically, the dying declaration is admitted because of compelling need for the statement, rather than any inherent trustworthiness" (United States v. Thevis, 84 F.R.D. 57 [N.D. Ga. 1979]). This exception proved noteworthy in the October 1995 trial and ultimate conviction of Yolanda Saldivar, accused of gunning down tejana singing star Selena Quintanilla Perez in a Corpus Christi, Texas, motel. Motel employees testified that Selena's last words before collapsing and dying were, "Lock the door! She'll shoot me again!" and "Yolanda Saldivar in Room 158." Saldivar received a sentence of life in prison following her conviction of murdering the twenty-three-year-old recording artist.

Under some circumstances, the availability of the declarant to testify is immaterial. For example, the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule allows the admission of an out-of-court statement "relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition" (rule 803(2)). The premise for this exception is that excitement caused by the event or condition leaves a declarant without sufficient time or capacity for reflection to fabricate, thus the statement is considered truthful. An example of an admissible excited utterance is the statement, "Look out! That green truck is running a red light and is headed toward that school bus!" Other examples of hearsay exceptions include statements of medical diagnosis, birth and marriage certificates, business records, and statements regarding a person's character or reputation.

Authentication and Identification

Evidence is not relevant unless its authenticity can be demonstrated. A letter in which the defendant admits her guilt in a tax fraud trial is inadmissible unless the prosecution can first show that the defendant actually wrote it. Bloodstained clothing is irrelevant without some connection to the issues of the trial, such as evidence that the clothing belonged to the accused murderer. The process of linking a piece of evidence to a case — of authenticating or identifying the evidence — is frequently referred to as laying a foundation. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a foundation is sufficient if a reasonable juror would find it more probably true than not true that the evidence is what the party offering it claims it to be.

The most basic way to lay an evidentiary foundation is to demonstrate that a witness has personal knowledge. For example, the witness may testify that he wrote the letter, or saw the plaintiff sign the contract, or found the bullet in the kitchen. When the evidence is an object, the witness must testify that the object introduced at the trial is in substantially the same condition as it was when it was witnessed.

Objects that are not readily identifiable must often be authenticated through chain-of-command testimony. In the case of a blood sample, a proper foundation would include testimony from each individual who handled the blood — from the nurse who drew the blood, to the lab technician who tested it, to the courier who delivered it to the courthouse for trial. Unless each individual can testify that the blood sample's condition remained substantially the same from the time it was drawn until the time it was offered as evidence (accounting for any loss in amount due to testing), the court could sustain an objection from the other side. The sample would then be inadmissible for lack of authentication.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, some evidentiary items are self-authenticating and need no additional authentication before being admitted. Documents containing the official seal of a government unit within the United States, and certified copies of public records such as birth certificates, are self-authenticating, as are newspapers and congressional documents.

Best-Evidence Rule

Best-evidence rule is a misleading name for the courts' preference for original writings, recordings, and photographs over copies when their contents are sought to be proved. The purpose of this rule at common law was to avoid the potential for inaccuracies contained in handmade copies. The current rule contained in the Federal Rules of Evidence requires the use of original writings, recordings, and photographs (including X rays and motion pictures), but the rule defines original to include most photocopies or prints from the same negative. The risk of inaccuracies from these types of duplicates is almost nonexistent. When the original evidence is lost, destroyed, not obtainable, or in the possession of the opponent, the court will not require a party to produce the original.

Judicial Notice

Some matters relevant to a trial are so obvious that a court will not require evidence to prove them — for example, that it is dark outside at midnight or that April 30, 1995, fell on a Sunday. To prevent wasting a court's time, the rules of evidence permit courts to take judicial notice of such matters, that is, to accept them as true without formal evidentiary proof. Courts may take judicial notice of facts generally known to be true (e.g., that gasoline is flammable) or facts verifiable from dependable sources (e.g., that Des Moines, Iowa, is in Polk County, which can be verified on a map). As a matter of course, courts judicially notice the contents of laws of and within the United States.

Privileges

It is a basic tenet in U.S. jurisprudence that "the public … has a right to every [person's] evidence," and parties in litigation should avail themselves of all rational means of ascertaining truth (Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 100 S. Ct. 906, 63 L. Ed. 2d 186 [1980]). Yet courts view certain interests and relationships to be of such importance that they protect those interests and relationships from certain efforts to gather evidence. These protections, or exclusions from the general rule of free access to evidence, are known as privileges.

Federal courts recognize several types of privileges. To encourage clients to communicate freely with their lawyers and to fully disclose any information that may enable their lawyers to provide appropriate legal advice, courts allow clients to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made when seeking legal services. This privilege applies to clients' communications with their attorneys and with the attorneys' office staff. It protects only confidential communications, not communications made to friends or acquaintances in addition to an attorney.

The lawyer-client privilege applies to the client, not the lawyer. Thus, the client, but not the lawyer, has the right to waive the privilege and to testify regarding protected communications. The lawyer-client privilege does not terminate even when the lawyer-client relationship does. The privilege does not apply to a client's allegations of a breach of duty by the lawyer.

To promote open communication within marital relationships, the rules of evidence also recognize a marital privilege. In criminal cases, a person has the privilege to refuse to testify against a spouse. This privilege covers only evidentiary matters that would incriminate the nontestifying spouse (the defendant), since other matters are not likely to jeopardize the marriage relationship. The nontestifying spouse does not have the right to assert the privilege; the privilege belongs only to the testifying spouse.

In criminal and civil cases, testimony about any confidential communications between spouses is also afforded a privilege. Either spouse, not just the testifying spouse, may assert this privilege. Unlike the testifying spouse privilege, the confidential communications spousal privilege survives the termination of the marriage by death or divorce — but it does not apply to permanently separated spouses.

Courts also recognize a political vote privilege, a clergy-penitent privilege, and qualified privileges for trade secrets, state secrets, and the identity of an informant. Some courts also recognize a physician-patient privilege, an accountant-client privilege, and a privilege granted to journalists seeking to protect their news sources.

See: Attorney-Client Privilege; Character Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; Cumulative Evidence; Derivative Evidence; Direct Evidence; Documentary Evidence; Exclusionary Rule; Extrinsic Evidence; Parol Evidence; Privileged Communication.

The two main sources of evidence in psychical research and parapsychology, as in other sciences, are observation and experiment. The question of observation is a peculiarly difficult one. Because claimed paranormal phenomena of a spontaneous nature, often produced by human beings, are involved, it is difficult to devise conditions that will preclude fraud or a misreading of what is observed. The borderlines between pre-conception, expectation, and actual observation are often very fuzzy, and even well-trained scientific observers have been deceived by hoaxes or by their own conscious or subconscious desire to prove or disprove the reality of claimed phenomena. Even the best of scientific observers are but amateurs in the arts of conjuring and stage magic and may easily be deceived by the skillful tricks of amateur or professional conjurers, and it is often dangerous to trust the apparent evidence of one's senses. The special effects developed by the movie industry, and available at some levels to the general public, now make the observation of various kinds of psychic phenomena even more questionable.

It is also not surprising that the observations of believers tend to endorse the paranormal, while the observations of skeptics tend in the opposite direction. Skeptics will go out of their way to protect their comfortable world. However, psychical researchers are frequently less than rigorous in applying Occam's razor (i.e., the simplest of competing theories is the preferred) and seeking the most parsimonious explanation for what is observed.

Experimenting with the psychic also presents a unique set of problems. Paranormal phenomena are not producible at the experimenter's will as in a chemical laboratory, and the human element involves numerous difficulties. "One good experiment," said Humphrey Davy, "is of more value than the ingenuity of a brain like Newton's. Facts are more useful when they contradict, than when they support received theories." Because nearly all the facts that psychical research has tried to establish contradict received theories, the importance of experimental data cannot be overemphasized.

From Psychical Research to Parapsychology

Although many areas of psychical research and parapsychology are virtually identical, their main distinction is one of emphasis, with psychical research emphasizing observation and parapsychology focusing upon experiments under laboratory conditions. It has been the hope of parapsychology that paranormal realities might be demonstrated or disproved under control conditions and evaluated by quantitative statistical methods. This approach came to the fore in the 1930s when championed by J. B. Rhine (1895-1980) and his associates in the United States, although the groundwork for such an approach had been laid by such British psychical researchers asG. N. M. Tyrrell (1897-1952), W. W. Carington (1884-1947), and S. G. Soal (1889-1975). It has to be admitted, however, that after decades of thousands of laboratory experiments over a wide range of claimed paranormal faculties and phenomena, there is still little generally accepted scientific evidence. This does not mean that the paranormal is disproved, only that it remains difficult to capture within the rigorous demands of laboratory scientific method and evidence. Such a situation has led many to move toward more open methods used successfully in the various branches of psychology.

The search for scientific understanding of paranormal experiences such as spiritual healing, out-of-the-body travel, telepathy, clairvoyance, seeing phantoms, and various forms of mystical states of consciousness may seem irrelevant to some. In such personal instances, objective scientific evidence is inaccessible. However, the qualitative nature of the experience itself, often accompanied by special knowledge, exaltation, wonder, or inspiration, is convincing to the person having the experience, even if unsatisfactory to observers.

Although there are obvious dangers in overemphasizing subjective experience at the expense of objective evidence, they need not be mutually exclusive approaches. Too great an emphasis on experimental data glosses over the problem that scientists are often as prejudiced as the general public, and it is now possible to discuss the "experimenter effect," where the hostile skepticism or uncritical beliefs of scientific investigators may respectively inhibit or enhance paranormal phenomena. Moreover, there is disturbing evidence that scientists can also cheat; review of the evidence for the paranormal has disclosed some probable manipulation of data.

Sources:

Barrett, W. F. On the Threshold of a New World. London: Kegan Paul, 1908. Revised as On the Threshold of the Unseen: An Examination of the Phenomena of Spiritualism and of the Evidence for Survival After Death. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1971.

Dingwall, Eric J., and John Langdon-Davies. The Unknown—Is It Nearer? New York: New American Library, 1956.

Ducasse, C. J. Paranormal Phenomena, Science, and Life After Death. New York: Parapsychology Foundation, 1969.

Garrett, Eileen J. My Life As a Search for the Meaning of Mediumship. London: Rider, 1939. Reprint, New York: Arno Press, 1975.

Heywood, Rosalind. ESP: A Personal Memoir. London: Chat-to & Windus, 1964. Reprint, New York: E. P. Dutton, 1964.

Leonard, Gladys Osborne. My Life in Two Worlds. London: Cassell, 1931.

Marbewick, Betty. "The Soal-Goldney Experiments with Basil Shackleton: New Evidence of Data Manipulation." Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 56, no. 211 (May 1978).

Murchison, Carl A., ed. The Case For and Against Psychical Belief. Worcester, Mass.: Clark University, 1927. Reprint, New York: Arno Press, 1975.

Neff, H. Richard. Psychic Phenomena and Religion: ESP, Prayer, Healing, Survival. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971.

Podmore, Frank. Studies in Psychical Research. New York: G. P. Putnam's and Son, 1897. Reprint, New York: Arno Press, 1975.

Prince, Walter Franklin. The Enchanted Boundary: Being a Survey of Negative Reactions to Claims of Psychic Phenomena, 1820-1930. Boston, Mass.: Boston Society for Psychic Re-search, 1930. Reprint, New York: Arno Press, 1975.

Rao, K. Ramakrishna. Experimental Parapsychology: A Review and Interpretation. Springfield, Ill.: Thomas, 1966.

Rhine, Louisa E. Mind Over Matter: Psychokinesis. New York: Macmillan, 1970. Reprint, New York: Collier, 1972.

Smythies, J. R., ed. Science and ESP. New York: Humanities Press, 1967.

Tuckett, Ivor L. The Evidence for the Supernatural. London, 1911.

Tyrrell, G. N. M. Science and Psychical Phenomena. New York: Harper, 1938. Reprint, New York: Arno Press, 1975.

LearnThatWord.com is a free vocabulary and spelling program where you only pay for results!

Any thing properly presented to a court which will assist it to make a decision in a case. Testimony is evidence given orally.

Proof presented at a trial by the parties through witnesses, records, documents, and concrete objects for the purpose of inducing the court or jury to believe their contentions.

• Customs, Formalities, and Practices - evidence: everything considered by court or jury to settle question of what truly is fact
• Police Procedures and Detection - evidence: facts or objects leading to apprehension of suspect or solution of crime
• Legal Procedures and Trials - evidence: legally admissible facts or objects that help to establish guilt or innocence of defendant

For other uses, see Evidence (disambiguation).

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2007)

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

Many issues surround evidence, making it the subject of much discussion and disagreement. In addition to its subtlety, evidence plays an important role in many academic disciplines, including science and law, adding to the discourse surrounding it.

An important distinction in the field of evidence is that some circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, or evidence that suggests truth as opposed to evidence that directly proves truth. Many have seen this line to be less-than-clear and significant arguments have arisen over the difference.

Contents 1 Burden of proof 2 Problems in evidence 3 Evidence in science 4 Evidence in law 4.1 Gathering evidence 4.2 Evidence before the court 5 Types of evidence 6 See also 7 References 8 External links

Burden of proof

Main articles: Legal burden of proof and Philosophic burden of proof

The burden of proof is the burden of providing sufficient evidence to shift a conclusion from an oppositional opinion. Whoever does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption. Whoever bears the burden of proof must present sufficient evidence to move the conclusion to their own position. The burden of proof must be fulfilled both by establishing positive evidence and negating oppositional evidence.

There are two primary burden-of-proof considerations:

1. The question of on whom the burden rests.
2. The question of the degree of certitude the proof must support. This depends on both the quantity and quality of evidence and the nature of the point under contention. Some common degrees of certitude include the most probable event, reasonable doubt, and beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Conclusions (from evidence) may be subject to criticism from a perceived failure to fulfill the burden of proof.

Scots Law An important part of the Law of evidence is that of corroboration in Scots law. This is a vital element of the law to protect the accused from unjustly being convicted. Each essential fact (facta probandum ) of a case must be corroborated by two independent pieces of evidence and one witness alone cannot corroborate an essential fact , it must be corroborated by a second independent source. Essential facts are those listed in the indictment and used to charge the accused and the sources of evidence come in many forms, such as documentary, DNA, forensic and report evidence or from a scientist or forensic pathologist. Corroboration will normally include direct evident, such as an eye witness and could include circumstantial evidence, which is evidence that has a relationship to the crime and can assist in ‘proving’ the essential fact also known as indirect evidence. Two pieces of indirect evidence which both relate to the same incident, may mean that direct evidence is not required, this is known as evidential facts and they do not require corroboration. The essential facts will vary with each case and the complainer is likely to lose, if an essential fact which is vital to their case cannot be proven.

Problems in evidence

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

The theory of evidence is a field wrought with dispute. Many of these disputes stem from the limits of human knowing, a field known as epistemology. Possibly the most salient question of evidence is how, if, and what, one can know. (Or, in other words, the question is to what extent is it even possible to fulfill the burden of proof.) This is the question of evidence's limits. Some^[who?] believe all evidence to be circumstantial, denying the possibility of direct evidence.

To help deal with this problem, many fields have found it useful to talk about levels of evidence and certainty, particularly the field of law.

Evidence in science

Main article: Scientific evidence

In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis.

One must always remember that the burden of proof is on the person making a contentious claim. Within science, this translates to the burden resting on presenters of a paper, in which the presenters argue for their specific findings. This paper is placed before a panel of judges where the presenter must defend the thesis against all challenges.

When evidence is contradictory to predicted expectations, the evidence and the ways of making it are often closely scrutinized (see experimenter's regress) and only at the end of this process is the hypothesis rejected: this can be referred to as 'refutation of the hypothesis'. The rules for evidence used by science are collected systematically in an attempt to avoid the bias inherent to anecdotal evidence.

Evidence in law

FBI Evidence Response Team

Main article: Evidence (law)

Evidence forms the very foundation of any legal system, without which law would be subject to the whims of those with power.

In law, the production and presentation of evidence depends first on establishing on whom the burden of proof lies. Admissible evidence is that which a court receives and considers for the purposes of deciding a particular case. Two primary burden-of-proof considerations exist in law. The first is on whom the burden rests. In many, especially Western, courts, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution. The second consideration is the degree of certitude proof must reach, depending on both the quantity and quality of evidence. These degrees are different for criminal and civil cases, the former requiring evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the latter considering only which side has the preponderance of evidence, or whether the proposition is more likely true or false. The decision maker, often a jury, but sometimes a judge, decides whether the burden of proof has been fulfilled.

After deciding who will carry the burden of proof, evidence is first gathered and then presented before the court:

Gathering evidence

In criminal investigation, rather than attempting to prove an abstract or hypothetical point, the evidence gatherers attempt to determine who is responsible for a criminal act. The focus of criminal evidence is to connect physical evidence and reports of witnesses to a specific person.

Evidence before the court

Presenting evidence before the court differs from the gathering of evidence in important ways. Gathering evidence may take many forms; presenting evidence that tend to prove or disprove the point at issue is strictly governed by rules. Failure to follow these rules leads to any number of consequences. In law, certain policies allow (or require) evidence to be excluded from consideration based either on indicia relating to reliability, or broader social concerns. Testimony (which tells) and exhibits (which show) are the two main categories of evidence presented at a trial or hearing. In the United States, evidence in federal court is admitted or excluded under the Federal Rules of Evidence.^[1]

Types of evidence

• Anecdotal evidence
• Intuition
• Personal experience
• Scientific evidence
• Testimonial

See also

• Falsifiability
• Mathematical proof
• Proof (truth)
• Validity

References

1. ^ Federal Rules of Evidence 2008

External links

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Evidence

• ASTM E141 Standard Practice for Acceptance of Evidence Based on the Results of Probability Sampling

v t e Logic   Overview Academic areas Argumentation theory Axiology Critical thinking Computability theory Formal semantics History of logic Informal logic Logic in computer science Mathematical logic Mathematics Metalogic Metamathematics Model theory Philosophical logic Philosophy Philosophy of logic Philosophy of mathematics Proof theory Set theory Foundational concepts Abduction Analytic truth Antinomy A priori Deduction Definition Description Entailment Induction Inference Logical consequence Logical form Logical implication Logical truth Name Necessity Meaning Paradox Possible world Presupposition Probability Reason Reasoning Reference Semantics Statement Strict implication Substitution Syntax Truth Truth value Validity   Philosophical logic Critical thinking and Informal logic Analysis Ambiguity Argument Belief Bias Credibility Evidence Explanation Explanatory power Fact Fallacy Inquiry Opinion Parsimony Premise Propaganda Prudence Reasoning Relevance Rhetoric Rigor Vagueness Theories of deduction Constructivism Dialetheism Fictionalism Finitism Formalism Intuitionism Logical atomism Logicism Nominalism Platonic realism Pragmatism Realism   Metalogic and metamathematics Cantor's theorem Church's theorem Church's thesis Consistency Effective method Foundations of mathematics Gödel's completeness theorem Gödel's incompleteness theorems Soundness Completeness Decidability Interpretation Löwenheim–Skolem theorem Metatheorem Satisfiability Independence Type–token distinction Use–mention distinction   Mathematical logic General Formal language Formation rule Formal system Deductive system Formal proof Formal semantics Well-formed formula Set Element Class Classical logic Axiom Natural deduction Rule of inference Relation Theorem Logical consequence Axiomatic system Type theory Symbol Syntax Theory Traditional logic Proposition Inference Argument Validity Cogency Syllogism Square of opposition Venn diagram Propositional calculus and Boolean logic Boolean functions Propositional calculus Propositional formula Logical connectives Truth tables Predicate First-order Quantifiers Predicate Second-order Monadic predicate calculus Set theory Set Empty set Enumeration Extensionality Finite set Function Subset Power set Countable set Recursive set Domain Range Ordered pair Uncountable set Model theory Model Interpretation Non-standard model Finite model theory Truth value Validity Proof theory Formal proof Deductive system Formal system Theorem Logical consequence Rule of inference Syntax Computability theory Recursion Recursive set Recursively enumerable set Decision problem Church–Turing thesis Computable function Primitive recursive function   Non-classical logic Modal logic Alethic Axiologic Deontic Doxastic Epistemic Temporal Intuitionism Intuitionistic logic Constructive analysis Heyting arithmetic Intuitionistic type theory Constructive set theory Fuzzy logic Degree of truth Fuzzy rule Fuzzy set Fuzzy finite element Fuzzy set operations Substructural logic Structural rule Relevance logic Linear logic Paraconsistent logic Dialetheism Description logic Ontology Ontology language   Logicians Anderson Aristotle Averroes Avicenna Bain Barwise Bernays Boole Boolos Cantor Carnap Church Chrysippus Curry De Morgan Frege Geach Gentzen Gödel Hilbert Kleene Kripke Leibniz Löwenheim Peano Peirce Putnam Quine Russell Schröder Scotus Skolem Smullyan Tarski Turing Whitehead William of Ockham Wittgenstein Zermelo   Lists Topics Outline of logic Index of logic articles Mathematical logic Boolean algebra Set theory Other Logicians Rules of inference Paradoxes Fallacies Logic symbols Portal Category Outline WikiProject Talk changes

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

Dansk (Danish)
n. - spor, bevismateriale, vidneforklaring, tydelighed, klarhed
v. tr. - bevise, bevidne, vidne om

idioms:

• bear evidence of    bære vidne om, vise
• give evidence    afgive vidneforklaring
• in evidence    til stede, fremtrædende

Nederlands (Dutch)
bewijs, indicatie, getuigenis, bewijzen getuigenis afleggen tegen medeplichtigen

Français (French)
n. - preuves, preuve, évidence, témoignage, (Jur) preuve, déposition, signe, marque
v. tr. - manifester, témoigner de

idioms:

• bear evidence of    témoigner de, porter la marque/les marques de
• give evidence    témoigner, déposer (en justice)
• in evidence    visible, en évidence, très en vue

Deutsch (German)
n. - Beweis, Anzeichen, Beweismaterial, Zeugenaussage
v. - erweisen, bestätigen, zeigen

idioms:

• bear evidence of    von etwas zeugen
• give evidence    als Zeuge aussagen
• in evidence    sichtbar

Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - μαρτυρία, ένδειξη, σημάδι, σημείο, αποδεικτικά στοιχεία, αποδείξεις

idioms:

• bear evidence of    προσμαρτυρώ, αποδεικνύω, έχω/φέρω σημάδια
• give evidence    (νομ.) καταθέτω (ενώπιον δικαστηρίου)
• in evidence    προφανής, ολοφάνερος

Italiano (Italian)
prova, testimonianza

idioms:

• bear evidence of    mostrar segni di
• give evidence    testimoniare
• in evidence    in testimonianza
• turn Queen's evidence/state's evidence    denunciare i propri complici, fare il "pentito"

Português (Portuguese)
n. - indício (m), prova (f), testemunho (m)

idioms:

• bear evidence of    testemunhar
• give evidence    testemunhar
• in evidence    em evidência
• turn Queen's evidence/state's evidence    de cúmplice a testemunha de acusação

Русский (Russian)
доказательство, свидетельство, основание, улика

idioms:

• bear evidence of    доказывает
• give evidence    давать свидетельские показания
• in evidence    в качестве доказательства
• turn Queen's evidence/state's evidence    выдать сообщников, чтобы избежать наказания

Español (Spanish)
n. - prueba, evidencia, testimonio, declaración
v. tr. - evidenciar, revelar

idioms:

• bear evidence of    prestar declaración
• give evidence    declarar como testigo, dar testimonio
• in evidence    visible, manifiesto, notorio

Svenska (Swedish)
n. - bevis, vittnesmål, tecken, bevisa, bestyrka

中文（简体）(Chinese (Simplified))
证据, 迹象, 证明, 显示, 表明

idioms:

• bear evidence of    证明...
• give evidence    作证
• in evidence    明显的

中文（繁體）(Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 證據, 跡象
v. tr. - 證明, 顯示, 表明

idioms:

• bear evidence of    證明...
• give evidence    作證
• in evidence    明顯的

한국어 (Korean)
n. - 증언, 증거, 분명함
v. tr. - 입증하다

idioms:

• give evidence    증거 사실을 진술하다
• in evidence    눈에 띄게, 증거로서

日本語 (Japanese)
n. - 明らかにするもの, 証拠, 証言, 明証, 形跡, 証人
v. - 証明する, 明示する, 証拠となる

idioms:

• in evidence    目立つ, 証拠として
• state's evidence    共犯証言, 共犯証言者

العربيه (Arabic)
‏(الاسم) شاهد, بينه, دليل‏

עברית (Hebrew)
n. - ‮עדות, הוכחה, ראיות‬
v. tr. - ‮הוכיח, העיד על, זימן לעדות‬

If you are unable to view some languages clearly, click here.