Inculpatory evidence. (Buckles, 2007 p 6)
Inculpatory evidence. (Buckles, 2007 p 6)
No, you do not need a lawyer to serve as a witness in your case. Any individual who has relevant information or evidence can serve as a witness, regardless of whether they are a lawyer or not.
We don't know whether such a thing is even possible; or whether it will be relevant.
If the evidence is relevant in another trial, it can be used. The issue may be whether there should be a second trial at all. If it is a second trial with the same defendant there are issues of double jeopardy. If it is a second trial with a different defendant then the question arises whether the evidence is relevant. There can also be a civil trial following a criminal trial, in which case again the question is one of relevance. The most famous civil trial following a criminal trial is the OJ Simpson situation, and much evidence from the criminal trial was relevant to the civil lawsuit. See related links below.
They can be depending upon how they were obtained according to the applicable laws and whether or not the presiding judge will allow them to be heard.
Relevant means that the evidence provided goes toward establishing whether a person met one or more of the required elements of a crime. Irrelevant means it does no have anything to do with proving any of those elements. Often an attorney will try to get irrelevant evidence introduced for other factors, such as showing prior crimes, or getting th sympathy of the jury, which may or may not be applicable to what is being tried. * Differential/ marginal/variable/incremental costs are always relevant * Cash costs and future costs are always relevant * Past costs or sunk costs are always irrelevant * Fixed costs are always irrelevant unless they are incremental
The judge is responsible for determining the significance of physical evidence in a trial. They assess whether the evidence is relevant, reliable, and admissible. The judge considers arguments from both parties, weighs the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect, and ultimately decides if the evidence can be presented to the jury and how much weight it should be given.
The distinction between discoverability and admissibility in law serves to separate the process of obtaining evidence from the process of determining if that evidence is admissible in court. Discoverability focuses on gathering relevant information, while admissibility assesses whether that information meets the legal criteria to be presented as evidence in a case. This separation helps ensure that legal proceedings are fair and based on reliable evidence.
The idea you're referring to is known as "admissibility." In legal contexts, admissibility refers to the criteria that determine whether evidence can be presented and considered in a court trial. Evidence must be relevant, reliable, and obtained legally to be deemed admissible, and the judge often makes the final decision on its inclusion.
To think critically is to assess propositions on their merit, rather than taking them at face value. Thinking critically includes: * Questioning whether there are any underlying assumptions. * Checking whether arguments are consistent and that the conclusions follow from the premises. * Comparing arguments with the relevant available evidence.
one is appraising whether an event is stressful and relevant to him or her
something you do, whether relevant to you or not, for the ultimate purpose of achieving your desired end result.