Evidence And Circumstantial Evidence

During a trial the plaintiff will attempt to prove their case by the presentation of evidence to the trier of fact. The evidence usually includes testimony of persons involved; witnesses as well as physical things such as pictures, documentation/records, recordings etc…

The gathering, protection and safeguarding of evidence is a crucial facet of evidence integrity, without accurate adherence to these processes, vital evidence that could possibly have significant influence on a court case could be deemed inadmissible. Therefore identifies the importance in establishing policy and procedure for law enforcement agencies in the identification, collection, and storage of evidence. Objects that constitute fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of the crime or are contraband may be introduced in evidence and exhibited to the jury if it is proven that such objects offered as evidence relate to the crime charged (Garland, 2015, p. 417). Below is a procedure for handling physical evidence for presentation

The blood stain clothes that detective Smith detained is considered real evidence. The clothes had been worn by the accused and were covered in blood; perhaps the victim’s blood, is in connection with the investigation (Anderson, Rondinelli, Watkins, 2013, p 26). Case Saturley v. CIBC World Markets Inc., 2012 had electronic documents as proof against the accused, he was doing unauthorized trading for CIBC clients. The records that were found on the defendant’s laptop was indeed connected to the investigation as was used to convict him.

This is crucially important because it gives guidelines as to what evidence can be used in trial, and it keeps irrelevant facts from being introduced, which can confuse a jury change the outcome of a trial (Universal Class). There are so many distinct types of evidence that are allowed in court, but the most common are the following: demonstrative evidence, exculpatory evidence, physical evidence, and testimony. Demonstrative evidence has any representation of an object and is a form of common proof. Exculpatory evidence is a broader term meaning any evidence that gives favor to the defendant (Universal Class). One of the most scientific involved forms of evidence is pure physical evidence, which is any real evidence or material evidence that plays a role in the trial.

The definition of the general term evidence is defined as “something (including testimony, documents, and tangible objects) that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact” (Black’s Law Dictionary 9th ed., 2009). When I think of evidence I think of it as something that can be used to prove the truth of a crime. Examples of evidence could be witnesses, fingerprints, paperwork and much more. Evidence is basically anything and everything that can beat the case. Understanding and locating a case can be very difficult. Here is an example, U.S. Supreme Court in Davis v. Washington 547 U.S. 813, 165 L.Ed. 2d 224, 126 S.Ct. 2266 (2006). First be sure to understand that165 L.Ed. 2d 224 to find Davis v. Washington will provide you with

Along with senses, evidence I believe is very straightforward when dealing with how we know. Without evidence the court system would not be able to

Likewise, the Sec. 4.19 of the Illinois Criminal Jury Instructions defines the standard thus: “The phrase ‘clear and convincing evidence’ means that degree of proof which, considering all the evidence in the case, produces the firm and abiding belief that it is highly probable that the proposition on which the defendant has the burden of proof is true.” (Emphasis supplied). Hawaii uses essentially the same language under its Instruction No. 3.6 of its Standard Civil Jury Instructions: “To ‘prove by clear and convincing evidence’ means to prove by evidence which, in your opinion, produces a firm belief about the truth of the allegations which the parties have presented. It means to prove that the existence of a fact is highly probable.” (Emphasis

Circumstantial evidence is probably one of the biggest ethical concerns when people are being convicted of crimes. Circumstantial evidence is: “Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute”. (Dictionay.com, 2010). Many

courts. A trial court has witnesses, exhibits are used as evidence, and a jury comes up with the

The most reliable type of forensic evidence is DNA, but it is still not perfect, and the results should be portrayed that way in court. The reason DNA evidence is so accurate is because it is highly objective. This objectivity makes it far less likely that an error will be made during the analysis of the DNA sample. However, errors are still possible. For example, samples may be switched or contaminated which could give a false result. There are two different kinds of DNA evidence, simple-mixture/single-source samples and complex-mixture samples. “The vast majority of DNA analysis currently involves samples from a single individual or from a simple mixture of two individuals (such as from a rape kit) . . . the

Now a day’s evidence can change a person’s life in the blink of an eye. “People were often punished for crimes based on the word of one or two individuals, with little concern given to sorting out the truth of the affair” (Hunter 12). But today a person must be tried and some physical evidence is needed in order for a person to be convicted of a crime.

the State’s evidence on all elements of the offense charged. . .,” and (2) that evidence of

There are many tangible circumstances that tend to prove or disprove some facts in all criminal or civil cases. Under rule 41(b) “A warrant may be issued under this rule to search for and seize any (1) property that constitutes evidence of the commission of a criminal offenses; or (2) contraband, the fruits of a crime, or things otherwise criminally possessed; or (3) property designed or intended for use or which is or has been used as the means of committing a criminal offense; or (4) person for whose arrest there is probable cause, or who is unlawfully restrained” (John N. Ferdico, 1999). Evidence is one of the single most important pieces of a criminal trial. It is used to determine a defendant’s guilt or innocence.

Today, more than ever, the quality of evidence in criminal cases is scrutinized because of contamination. Contamination is the introduction of something that physically corrupts a substance at a crime scene that was not previously there; it comes in many forms and most often times comes from the humans who investigate a crime scene. It is imperative that prevention of cross-contamination is implemented when gathering evidence. Several of the more sensitive forensic techniques such as trace analysis, bloodspatter interpretation, and DNA comparison are not being used to their fullest potential. Items of physical crime scene evidence are not always visible to the naked eye and may be easily overlooked so deliberate and methodical approach to collection and preservation of evidence is essential. Prosecutors have lost cases due to crime scene contamination; this could be prevented by simple and productive behaviors. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a leading case on physical evidence, stated:

The two forms are preponderance of the evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Preponderance is mostly used in civil court, whereas proof beyond a reasonable doubt is used in criminal court. In civil court, the plaintiff must provide factual evidence regarding why he or she is suing the defendant. In a criminal case, a higher standard of evidence is required, which is the proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In most criminal cases the prosecutor must attempt to persuade that the defendant, is, in fact, guilty of the charges brought against them. In criminal cases, the evidence must be circumstantial and adequate enough to decide whether the person is guilty. Which is where the term proof beyond a reasonable doubt derives from. It's another way of saying are you certain, is the proof enough for you to say okay, I have no doubt in my mind that this person is