ipl-logo

Direct Vs Circumstantial Evidence

1340 Words6 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Relevance of circumstantial evidence

The rules of evidence vary greatly depending on the type of lawsuit that is being filed. It is essential to understand what all of the rules are and what the justification of the rules are. The purpose of the rules of evidence is to ensure that all law proceedings are fair, that there are no unjustifiable expenses incurred and that at the end of the proceedings there is a fairly rendered verdict. The major portion of the evidence discussion is to determine what evidence in the case filing will be deemed admissible or inadmissible, whether the evidence as direct or circumstantial evidence, and how that evidence relates to the statutes in the State of Florida with regards to relevancy, witness testimony, physical evidence, protected acts, …show more content…

Admissible evidence is any type of document, testimony, physical evidence that can be used in court and is relevant to the court case being heard. According to Florida Statute 90.401, “relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact” (Online Sunshine). Inadmissible evidence is any type of evidence that the court does not deem appropriate or relevant to the case. A form of inadmissible evidence could be hearsay. Briefly, hearsay is testimony that is made outside of court proceedings. Another form of inadmissible evidence can be when evidence is used in an attempt to misleading of jury. One other form of inadmissible evidence is a character witness. In these cases the evidence is thrown out and cannot be used against a person during legal proceedings. Some of these topics will be discussed in detail further in the …show more content…

To help in making the determinations between the two, it is first important to understand the definition of Trier-of-fact. Trier-of-fact is a judge or jury that would be used to determine the question of facts in case if necessary (Cornell Law). Now that the definition has been given for Trier-of-fact we can now discuss the two types of evidence. Direct evidence is evidence that does not require the Trier-of-fact to presume of infer that something occurred because of the being something or someone that can attest to the fact. In circumstantial evidence, a series of facts are given and it is up to the Trier-of-fact to make the determination of the primary fact (Legal

Show More
Related

Michelle Moore-Bosko Trial

1029 Words | 5 Pages

In the trial of the four Norfolk sailors, the main reason why they were all convicted was not the proclaimed evidence that wasn’t on the scene, but was the confessions that they were coerced to say during the interrogations. There was virtually no evidence against the four sailors, but the jury sided that they were all guilty. The major problem during the trial was that no evidence was found at the crime scene and the prosecution only badgered the four sailors based on confessions that they were threatened to say or else they

Read More

Court Case Of Harold James Blackburn

1230 Words | 5 Pages

The reliability and admissibility of evidence becomes a foundation to this truth as any evidence presented cannot contain elements which can provide doubt towards the validity of the prosecution. This can be shown through guideline 14 of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions agreement to provide advice for the NSW police towards the legal limitations or consequences of evidence obtained during the course of an investigation (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions n.d). Identification evidence in particular has a lower weight and strength for admission to a court due to the fallibility and circumstantial nature of witnesses. The admissibility of identification evidence was previously determined by judges based on its quality with case law such as R v. Christie providing principles for discretionary powers for admissibility and Alexander v. R providing methods satisfactory to the court for identification such as identification parades under common law. (R v. Christie 1914; Alexander v. R 1981).

Read More

Aaron Hernandez And The Inquisitorial System

1046 Words | 5 Pages

This led to circumstantial evidence being admitted and being the basis for

Read More

The Pros And Cons Of The Brady Rule

910 Words | 4 Pages

In United States v. Agurs, the Court set out three situations in which the Brady Rule applies: 1) the government must disclose material evidence that it is aware of or should be aware of that indicates a witness perjured his/her testimony, 2) the government must disclose material evidence specifically requested by the defendant before trial, and 3) the government must disclose exculpatory evidence even if the defendant does not make a request or only makes a general request for such evidence. The Court’s decision in Agurs also provided that the definition of “material evidence” for purposes of the Brady Rule is information that creates a reasonable doubt of the defendants’

Read More

Fre 403 Vs Fre-404 Essay

1185 Words | 5 Pages

FRE 403 and FRE 404(b) interact in a variety of degrees usually battling the other, in a courtroom regarding admissible evidence and on what grounds the argument may be made for or against using FRE 403 and FRE 404(b). These rules are vital inside a courtroom and the interaction between these different rules, is crucial to those presenting their case. According to our textbook, Evidence for Paralegals, in chapter 2 page 22, we learn a little history behind these rules as it pertained to evidence and the courts. Long before the Federal Rules of Evidence existed, the courts would come to conclusions about evidence by their relevancy legally. This meant that any evidence introduced would be decided that although it may be of sound logic to enter

Read More

Outline For Ernie The Process Of Jury Defense

1167 Words | 5 Pages

Presentation of Evidence: In order to try to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution will first present its case. This evidence may include witnesses, records, and forensic data. After then, the defence will get a chance to question the witnesses for the prosecution. Defense's Case:

Read More

Exclusionary Rule Pros And Cons

645 Words | 3 Pages

While some states followed the Supreme Court in adopting this rule, others stood by the common law rule which allows all evidence to be admissible in court no matter how the evidence was obtained. Throughout the years many arguments have stemmed from the effectiveness of the exclusionary rule. Those in favor of the exclusionary rule believe that it protects people against unnecessary search and seizure, establishes innocence before guilt, and stops admissibility of false evidence. The exclusionary rule requires all law enforcement officers to provide a warrant in the case of search and seizure to protect people’s right to privacy.

Read More

Mapp Vs Ohio Essay

593 Words | 3 Pages

Not allowing illegally or improperly obtained evidence in a trial has both positives and negatives. The beneficial effects is that it deters law enforcement from breaking the law and illegally searching and seizing persons or property. However, similar to criminals, police officers will not usually think about the repercussions when committing the crime, in this case unlawfully obtaining evidence. Another positive result of not recognizing illegitimate proof is to force a trust in

Read More

Admissibility Model Of Miranda

486 Words | 2 Pages

(Mannheime, 2016). Evidence excluded from trials because it is unconstitutionally obtained and evidence that is excluded because it would be unconstitutional to use it. Evidence obtained unconstitutionally is governed by 2 theories. One the evidence is excluded because the police have obtained it unconstitutionally and exclusion is thought to be desirable to deter police behavior in the future by precluding a benefit from the conduct. The other theory the evidence is excluded because the constitution guarantees the defendant a procedural right to exclude the evidence.

Read More

Comparing The Salem Witch Trials And The American Criminal Justice System

478 Words | 2 Pages

Today, modern standards require the burden of proof be brought forth by the plaintiff, or prosecution in criminal cases. This means that the accused no longer has to prove they did not commit the crime, but the prosecution has to prove that all the evidence proves the accused did in fact commit the crime in question. Circumstantial evidence is not enough, but physical evidence, or forensic evidence is now required in modern courts for a conviction. Additionally, the modern standard when considering evidence, and for conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Read More

Exclusionary Rule

1231 Words | 5 Pages

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine states that evidence acquired illegally must be excluded from trial. This extension of the exclusionary rule is based on the same basis as the exclusionary rule itself, with the main goal of the doctrine to deter illegal police activity and to preserve the integrity of the court. The Supreme Court however, has permitted such evidence to be used in some proceedings (WEAL 2008). The exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine differ because Fruit of

Read More

Examples Of Significant Inconsistencies

189 Words | 1 Pages

Significant Evidential Inconsistencies During the course of an investigation it may be necessary to ask a witness to explain a significant evidential inconsistency between what they have said during the interview and other material gathered during the course of the investigation. Such inconsistencies would, for example, include significant differences between the account provided by the witness during the interview and:  What the witness is reported to have said on a previous occasion;  The accounts of other witnesses;  Injuries sustained by either the alleged victim or the alleged offender. There are a number of reasons for significant evidential inconsistencies between what a witness says during an interview and other material gathered

Read More

Evidence: The Four Main Types Of Evidence

1259 Words | 6 Pages

Evidence is the means by which the court is informed of the facts on dispute between the parties, as set out in their pleadings. Upon that evidence, the court decides the issues of fact. The four main types of evidence available to prove the facts in issue are documentary evidence; evidence of witnesses of fact; evidence of expert witnesses; and real evidence. Documentary evidence is produced in almost every civil action. The public documents such as birth, marriage, or death certificates.

Read More

Burden Of Proof In Criminal Cases

1748 Words | 7 Pages

Burden of proof in civil trial cases Burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies, this is the principle that one has to consider. Evidence contains facts of issues that really relevant and which is also admissible in the court, they are meant to support the case of parties or spoil the case which supposed to discharge party in his burden of proof, in civil cases it always based on the balance of probability, which the party have responsibility to establish before the court. Based on this, the court in civil will act on the preponderance of evidence, means that the party with genuine and clear evidence will wins the case. Example of this type of case is when there is a contract between two parties and plaintiff proved

Read More

Arthur Goodhart Ratio Decidendi Analysis

1373 Words | 6 Pages

This is where the opinions of the judge become relevant. To ascertain the materiality of the facts, one would have to use these as reference. If the judge’s opinion does not explicitly express on which of the facts are material, then generally, all facts in the case are presumed to be material except for those which are obviously not. For example, facts relating to a person, time, place, and amount are insignificant because they will probably not affect the case in any way. Now, if a particular fact is recorded by the reporter, but it is not mentioned in the judge’s opinion, this could one mean one of two things; whether the judge has overlooked the fact to be material or the judge is implying that the fact is indeed immaterial.

Read More

More about Direct Vs Circumstantial Evidence

Related Topics

Open Document