0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Is non-testimonial evidence admissible in court?
From "Criminal Procedure & Constitutional Protections" (Second Edition) Non Testimonial Evidence: "Evidence that does not come from the mouth of a witness and may include conduct; physical evidence that may have the operative effect of proving guilt but has not been deemed to have the same effect as speech" Examples: Blood alcohol test, physical test to identify if a suspect is intoxicated. See case Schmerber v California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
Is non testimonial evidence admissible in court?
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.
Why is evidence important?
Because it is now accepted as scientific fact that virtually everyone in the world has different fingerprints. This makes it statistically unlikely that anyone but you could have been at the scene of the crime.
Why must a forensic scientist collect biological evidence before physical evidence?
Biological evidence is much more likely to degrade and become unusable before physical evidence does.
Oxidative glycolysis is reliable for?
Physical activities lasting more than 2 minutes in duration
Which evidence is more reliable artifacts or written records?
artifacts cause written records can just make up anything.
Why is flash storage a more reliable form of storage as opposed to mechanical storage?
For one thing there is no physical head to crash into the physical platter and damage it.
Why is first-hand evidence more reliable than second-hand evidence?
First-hand evidence is evidence that comes from someone that witnessed/was apart of whatever the situation is. For example, if there was a fire in a building, and you were trying to figure out what caused it, you would interview those who were in the building around the time of the fire. That would be first-hand evidence. Second-hand evidence would be people who were outside at the time of the fire, or people who were not directly witnessing the event. It is more reliable because the people were right there, and have a personal account of what happened.
Why do you need to collect more data to obtain reliable data?
The more data you have, the more accurate your information. If you have a large amount of evidence of one result, it makes it look correct.
How can electric heating systems be more reliable than gas heating systems?
Research has not provided any conclusive evidence as to why an electric heating system would be more reliable than a gas heating system. It is believed that both are equally reliable, and for cost efficiency it is quite a bit cheaper to heat with gas than it is with electric heat.
Why should evidence be material?
This question is vague. Evidence does not have to be material in all situations. In a debate, for example, you use your words and knowledge to hold your position. In court, evidence is generally material because someones future is at stake, and tangible evidence is probably more reliable and easily reevaluated after long periods of standstill in a case.
What is the most common reason why DNA analyzes overturn incorrect criminal convictions?
DNA evidence is much more reliable an identifier of an individual than eyewitness accounts.
