Is ballistics evidence admissible in court?
Generally it would be, if the gathering and testing were done by a certified law enforcement official (s) and a certified forensic lab. Please be advised, acceptance of any evidence depends upon the existing laws relating to the matter and the ruling of the presiding judge.
Would evidence that a defendant signed a contract when similar evidence has already been shown to the jury be admissible in court?
The Ballistics Analysts examine firearms and tool marks. Ballistics is the science of projectiles and firearms. The duties of a ballistics analyst include - * analysing crime scenes for ballistic-related evidence; * examining ballistic objects; * attending post-mortem examinations; * presenting expert evidence in court; and * doing research
In general, state and federal courts have increasingly accepted DNA evidence as admissible. The first state appellate court decision to uphold the admission of DNA evidence was in 1988 (Andrews v. Florida, 533 So. 2d 841 [Fla. App.]), and the first major federal court decision to uphold its admission occurred in Jakobetz. By the mid-1990s, most states' courts admitted DNA test results into evidence.
It depends on how the recorder and the tapes, came to be used and entered into evidence. If it was from a court authorizerd/court ordered wiretap, yes, it can be. Sound recordings from other sources are generally not admissible due to the conflict with the "hearsay" rule, not to mention several other conflicts in law.
A photocopy of a document that is not legally admissible document will it become admissible if the involved party admits it as susch?
Yes. Examples might be the results of drug lab or DNA tests. Evidence attempting to be introduced as 'non-testimonial' faces scrutiny and challenge to determine whether it is admissible, or not under the rules of "hearsay" evidence. The US Supreme Court differentiated between "testimonial" and "non-testimonial" witness statements in Crawford v. Washington, (2004) and Davis v. Washington with Hammon v. Indiana, (2006). For more information on these cases, see Related Questions, below.
Yes, there are rules regarding how evidence must be brought to the court and admitted as evidence. So if you don't follow the rules the judge doesn't have to allow it. You have asked a complicated question and not provided any details. Briefly, the rules of evidence apply to criminal and civil proceedings and the judge is the person who governs the trial. In some cases a litigant may want to present some "proof" of…
It depends why your sister in law taped your brother. If she is trying to get grounds for divorce then a tape recording is generally not admissible in a court of law. If a crime was committed and say your brother admitted to that crime it may still not be admissible in a court of law, but some judges may listen to the tape and deem whether it can be used in court as evidence.
A certificate of cremation issued by is a "legal document" to the extent that the court can enter it into evidence as specified in the Federal Rules of Evidence (most State evidence codes mirror the FREs). Records of a religious nature and similar certificates are admissible over hearsay objection by Fed.R.Evid. 803(11) and 803(12). Records of regularly-conducted business activity are admissible hearsay by Fed.R.Evid. 803(6).
The rules under which most administrative hearings are conducted are not as strict as the rules of evidence in criminal court. Many hearing officers WILL allow hearsay testimony and circumstantial evidence to be introduced into the hearing but ONLY TO THE EXTENT that it is directly applicable to the matter at hand.
In most states, no. However, in some states they are allowed under certain circumstances. It's typically not within the trial judge's discretion when to and not to admit this evidence. Most states' appellate/supreme courts have set out rules in case law for when polygraph is admissible. For example, in several states, a polygraph is admissible in a criminal case when it is first introduced by the defendant, but the state may not be the first…
The two main ways evidence would not be shown (admissible) in trial is 1. If the evidence is found to have been obtained by illegal means and the attorney (defense or prosecution) challenges its use in court. 2. The prosecution or defense intentionally or unintentionally fails to disclose articles of evidence during a criminal trial. Which by the way, is illegal.
It basically states that if a officer gathers evidence in an illegal way or taints the evidence in some way that taint will wear off eventually. It doesn't really state how long it takes for the taint to wear off but that it will eventually. Meaning that the tainted evidence could later be used in a court case and be admissible.