Materiality Is Logically Relevant

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…

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.

When a court decides whether or not to issue a search warrant, the elements of the informant’s credibility/reliability and basis of knowledge are to be used as guides when considering the totality of the circumstances and are

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, “A legal rule that bars unlawfully obtained evidence from being used in court proceedings.” The dictionary provides a basic

Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceedings.

(iii) Description of the relevant facts and events leading to the decision or action plus evidence to support the decision or action, including identification of the pertinent regulations applied in making the decision.

II. Whether the government’s presentation of circumstantial evidence showing that the defendant-appellant acted evasively in his dealing with the substance at issue, knew the chemical components that made up the substance, and knew the effects of the substance was sufficient to prove the requisite scienter element necessary to sustain

Sections 17 to 31 of the Evidence Act are related to admissions and confessions. Sections 17 to 31 refers about admissions/confessions, and also, the admissibility and inadmissibility of admissions/confessions. An analysis of the above mentioned provisions reveals that an admission or a confession to be relevant must be related to a "fact in issue" or a "relevant fact". In that sense, Section 5 (and consequently Sections 6 to 16) of the Evidence Act are unavoidably interlaced with admissible admissions/confessions. It is, therefore, necessary to record here, that admissibility of admissions/confessions would be dependent on whether they would fall in the sphere of "facts in issue" or "relevant facts". That in turn is to be determined with reference

(iii) Description of the relevant facts and events leading to the decision or action plus evidence to support the decision or action, including identification of the pertinent regulations applied in making the decision.

These are classified as evidence as they outline data or hard facts. Also supporting the claim by stating researched ‘truth’ including proof of expertise.

Types of Evidence Evidence can be either direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence believed, proves a fact without requiring the judge or jury to draw inferences. For example, direct evidence may consist of the information contained in a photograph or a videotape. It might also consist of testimonial evidence provided by a

Section 12 of the Evidence Act provides the rules concerning the competence and compellability of witnesses that are called to adduce evidence for a party to a proceeding. The section states that ‘every person is competent to give evidence’ and that ‘a person who is competent to give evidence about a fact is compellable to give that evidence’.

The Federal Rules of Evidence are meant to insure fairness in Judicial Administration, to avoid unfounded expenses and postponement, and to bolster the advancement and progression of the law of evidence so that truth will be insured and proceedings resolved fittingly. These rules are not intended to culminate an intensive all

May and Powles view evidence as ‘something’ which tends to prove or disprove something else. In the context of a trial this consists of information placed before the court for the purpose of proving or disproving facts in issue. Beecher-Monas states that in a system based on the rule of law and which aspires to ‘truth’, the accuracy and reliability of such information is essential. The mechanisms available to the court to determine the latter, centre on the presentation of evidence under oath, cross-examination and the observation of witness demeanour .

The hearsay rule is based inherently on the concise definition of hearsay. In this regard, hearsay can be defined as any statement other than that made by an individual in the process of testifying at a hearing or trial, which is offered for purposes of affording evidence of truth pertaining to a particular matter. According to the Cornell University Law School (2014), the hearsay rue is the rule that prohibits out of court statements from being admitted as evidence at a trial. B and large, the hearsay rule is motivated intrinsically by the understanding in the belief that hearsay is unreliable. For example, if a witnessed stopped at a scene of a car accident and a survivor intimated to him or her that the driver caused the accident, this statement cannot be admitted as evidence to prove the same. It is imperative to understand that the hearsay rule, according to the Cornell University Law School, bars all such evidence, whether oral or written.