0
What else can I help you with?
Is it permissible to introduce new evidence during a trial?
Yes, it is generally permissible to introduce new evidence during a trial, but there are rules and procedures that govern the admissibility of such evidence. The judge has the discretion to allow or exclude new evidence based on factors such as relevance, reliability, and fairness to both parties.
Should evidence be admitted in a prosecution's opening statements?
Evidence is never admitted during the opening statement, and the judges usually admonish the jury specifically that opening statements are only argument and not evidence. However, prosecutors will often show to the jury some evidence that they intend to introduce during the trial, but if for some reason that evidence is not introduced during the trial, the defendant can move for a mistrial at the close of the prosecution's case.
What is a map hearing?
A "Mapp" hearing is a pre-trial hearing on whether or not to suppress a piece of evidence that is going to be introduced at trial. The evidence could be tangible evidence, such as an illegal substance, or intangible evidence, such as a confession.
Is it permissible for jurors to communicate with lawyers after a trial has concluded?
No, it is not permissible for jurors to communicate with lawyers after a trial has concluded.
What is to suppress in a trial?
Suppress means to exclude or prevent disclosure, often used in reference to evidence sought to be introduced at a criminal trial. A motion to suppress is a request to a judge to keep out evidence at a trial or hearing, often made when a party believes the evidence was unlawfully obtained.
Oral evidence of otherwise clear terms in a contract can be introduced at a trial to contradict those terms?
false
Can a judge refuse to look at evidence presented during a trial?
No, a judge cannot refuse to look at evidence presented during a trial. It is their responsibility to consider all relevant evidence in making a fair and just decision.
How can the defense attorney effectively introduce new evidence during the trial to support their case?
The defense attorney can effectively introduce new evidence during the trial by following the rules of evidence, seeking permission from the judge, and presenting the evidence in a clear and convincing manner to support their case.
Can new evidence be presented after a mistrial?
Yes, new evidence can be presented after a mistrial, especially if a retrial is ordered. In a retrial, both parties have the opportunity to introduce new evidence that may not have been available during the initial trial. However, the admissibility of this evidence will still be subject to the rules of evidence and the discretion of the judge. Additionally, the nature of the mistrial may influence what evidence can be introduced.
What happens if someone requests evidence in court but the prosecutors fail to present it?
You cannot "request evidence." If the prosecution does not introduce it at trial then there is nothing for the defense to request. If the defense has its own evidence they may introduce that. During the 'discovery' phase of the trial both sides will have, should have, listed all the evidence they intended to introduce. However, the failure of one side or the other to actually introduce it does not open the door for the opposition to demand that it be introduced.
Can new evidence be introduced in a retrial, and if so, what are the guidelines and procedures for presenting this evidence?
Yes, new evidence can be introduced in a retrial. The guidelines and procedures for presenting this evidence vary by jurisdiction, but generally, the evidence must be relevant, reliable, and not previously known or available during the original trial. The party seeking to introduce the new evidence must typically file a motion with the court, provide notice to the opposing party, and demonstrate why the evidence was not presented earlier. The judge will then determine if the new evidence meets the criteria for admissibility.
When is circumstantial evidence not admissible in court?
To start, much of the evidence must be backed up with factual evidence, so that the circumstancial evidence is minimal.
