I have never heard of one. In order to make an arrest there HAD to be 'probable cause' that a crime had been committed. At the very least the arresting officer could testify to that, and that in itself would be considered evidentiary testimony.
There is no way. To win there's either lack of evidence, or little evidence. But if there is no evidence, there is case.
No, a judge cannot close a case without seeing evidence. It is essential for a judge to review all relevant evidence before making a decision in a case.
No, a case cannot proceed to trial without any evidence. Evidence is necessary to support the claims made by both the prosecution and defense in a trial. Without evidence, there is no basis for a trial to proceed.
Any evidence is archived and stored in case it is needed in the future.
Evidence. Without it, you can't get a judge to do the case. It also doesn't hurt to have a lawyer on you side.
Yes, you can. Here is an example: Without more evidence, the case would be dismissed.
Not likey. In a case where there is no evidence or witnesses it turns into a he-said she-said battle.
The clear connection between the evidence presented and the conclusion drawn in this case is that the evidence directly supports and leads to the conclusion without any ambiguity or doubt.
A preliminary hearing is necessary in a case where someone is killed, to find out if there is enough evidence to make a case and go forward with a trial. If there isn't enough evidence, then the case will not be tried.
== ==
Relevant evidence is evidence that has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Material evidence is evidence that is related to an issue in the case and has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. Relevant evidence is broader in scope, while material evidence specifically pertains to the issues at hand in a case.
state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof