Probative

explained: “Notwithstanding its merit in excluding unreliable evidence and enhancing adjudication, the rule against hearsay suffers from the disadvantage that it is overly broad in its application. Because the rule can and does lead to the exclusion of probative evidence, it has been constrained over the years in the UK and Ireland by numerous common law and statutory exceptions.” 11. Tapper highlights some Common Law exceptions. For the purposes of brevity, these exceptions shall not be expatiated

Among other things, logically probative material refers to evidence that tends logically to prove the existence or non-existence of a fact. Logically probative material is assessed in administrative merits review and judicial review of merits review decisions, with its validity ultimately determining the outcome of these reviews. Firstly, in regards to administrative merits review, proof of facts is required as opposed to a mere suspicion of these facts. This was reiterated in the case of Re Pochi

• Is the statement hearsay? • Any exceptions? • The prosecution argues that the confession of a person who is neither a witness nor a party to the case is totally inadmissible. Is this point sound? Relevance Whether or not Lucas’s written confession is admissible as evidence depends on its relevance. To be admissible, evidence must be both logically and legally relevant to the case. Logical relevance Logically relevant evidence is evidence having the tendency to prove that any fact of consequence

cumulative evidence has to greatly outweigh the probative value of the evidence. If harm that is not related to the legal issue of the case will be done to a party by the introduction of the evidence, then the evidence prejudicial. A fact often possesses both probative and prejudicial effects, in which case it is then left up to the court to determine if the prejudicial effects outweigh the probative value enough to exclude the evidence, or if the probative value of the evidence outweighs the prejudicial

Within the context of the Australian judicial system, all legal proceedings are subject to certain rules regarding the admissibility of evidence. In the mid 1990’s, the existing rules of evidence were replaced by the Uniform Evidence Act’s, as a means whereby consistency of decision making could be better observed. These new rules lay out standards which must be strictly adhered to, to ensure that the rights of both parties to a case are respected, allowing for a fair trial to take place. The specific

Constitution, in that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative because it was too remote in time to be relevant to the charged crimes and had a prejudicial effect. A. Standard of Review A trial court has broad discretion over questions of relevancy and the admissibility of evidence. State v. Dunn, 817 S.W.2d 241, 245 (Mo. Banc. 1991). An appellate court cannot reverse unless abuse is

documents’ probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Specifically, Johnson asserts that the documents should have been excluded because they indicate that he had a pending criminal case, and that they indicate that he is indigent. The State, for its part, asserts that the documents were critical to establish that the contraband at issue here belonged to Johnson, and that any prejudice may have suffered did not substantially outweigh the evidence’s probative value

of what type evidence is presented must be relevant to the case to be admissible. “Relevance refers to any material fact or evidence having a tendency to make the existence of a matter at issue more probable than it would be without said fact (probative value)”(Britz, 2008, p. 344). In this paper, an examination of the legal standard of relevance evidence will be discussed. Furthermore, the rules of inclusion and exclusion of evidence based on the wording of the rules will be scrutinized. In

Introduction In the discussion which follows, the function served by ‘evidence’ within the adversarial system will be considered. The central importance of relevance to the admissibility of evidence will be linked to the purpose served by the tribunal of fact. The range of factors which impact on the criminal justice system will act as a basis to consider the justification for the exclusion of certain evidential material. Developments in attitudes as a result of recent legislation will lead

September 23, 2016 The Honorable Alan M. Wilner County Courts Building 401 Bosley Avenue, Room 13 M Towson, Maryland 21204 Re: Propensity Evidence in Sexual Assault/Child Molestation Cases Dear Judge Wilner: As Vice-Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, I am writing to request that the Rules Committee establish a rule to allow for the admissibility of certain evidence of similar behavior by the defendant in sexual assault and child molestation cases. The adoption of such a rule will effectively