ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Social Issues

Evidence in a Formal Way to See Evidence of Life.

Updated on June 8, 2014

This boy has just given us evidence that jumping in dirty puddle is fun.

Otherwise why would he do it?
Otherwise why would he do it? | Source

Evidence is some kind of proof of the occurrence, nonoccurrence of something.

Think of evidence as a chapter in a historic book of what happened. Think of persuasion as the advocacy of what that evidence means. Evidence is king because from evidence all else flows. Persuasion is queen because with out persuasion there can be no legacy of the evidence.

Let us jump right in to a really fun rule. What kind of evidence can we take notice of that is just out there in the world? Think about all the stuff we assume and presume is true. News is the biggest provider. How about things like: it was a cloudy night so there was no moon to see by, or "how did you get shocked again?" there was a power outage in your area at that time.

See some stuff is just something we can take notice of. We do not have to go around proving it.

(b) Kinds of Facts That May Be Judicially Noticed. The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it:

(1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or

(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

So a power outage and a cloudy night fit this bill to a T. US weather service or power company records.

But that first one is fun. Everybody knows old Jeb is a drunk who lays on the park bench all day.Maybe that is gossip. Maybe Jeb is on serious meds. So we would question that. But not if he had been doing it for 10 years. The old swimming hole is froze over in January. That one is pretty tight.

Now if that kind of stuff would have a major major impact on what we were trying to get at we could have a good argument on that. Just the fact that the swimming hole was frozen might mean that Jeb who was proven to be there at a certain time could not possibly have drowned Ms. Jenkins cat there. Don't you think that cool? (get it?)

So when you are talking with someone and they just assume something to be a fact -- Just because --- generally that is the kind of thing they are talking about. And in fact it should be considered. Some times assumptions make sense, the night the cat died it was 15 degrees outside so we assume the swimming hole was froze.

Can you take someone else's word for something?

Do you question every single thing you hear.

See results

Hmm this is a hard one. Can he do this?

Here is one that seldom leads to debate except when Bible guys argue with Atheists

This is rule 1003.

A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original’s authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.

So you would have a hearing about the admissibility of an ancient writings' content. Hmmm. Let me get right to the conclusion. It would be admissible to prove that it was at some time written. Now that might seem like nothing but it is evidence that tends to indicate it was real when written. You see this evidence and it's admissibility is not in question. For what purpose is in question. It is OK to show the content of the book. But is it fair to admit it to prove that what is in it is true?

Probably not. But if you could somehow show that the book is more than likely authentic in the first instance -- it comes in for everything.

Walker, Texas Ranger Court house - Dallas

These great methods of divining truth should not be locked up for only lawyers
These great methods of divining truth should not be locked up for only lawyers | Source

Two guys are arguing in bar about a call made in a football game.

The news comes on and the commissioner of referees declares that that call was in error and likely cost one team the game.

Well somebody just won the argument. That is what we call expert testimony.

Rule 702 helps us to understand who we should listen to:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Do you rebel against Authority

Can you believe something just because someone who is an authority says so?

See results

Expert Witnesses

The above reference to Authoritative is normally used for writings. But hey if you can get the author also - great.

Expert witnesses is the cousin. But we get to judge for ourselves just who is an expert and how much weight to give their opinions or conclusions. If we read all of Darwin's stuff and could not make up our minds. Perhaps calling him as a witness and discussing the matter may be just what we need.

FRE 703 An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. If experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted. But if the facts or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.

(I know that is long but chopping it up just does not work)

So in other words experts don't just get to say -- because I said so. They must be examined and we must make our own judgment as to how much weight to give them.


Closing thoughts

CSI shows are very interesting and I think fun to watch though I do not have "TV" in my house now I do sometimes. The wrters are great friends of logic and evidence. And the character give the concepts some human face.

It is important here that we see the dynamic of what they love to call the "gut feeling" - intuitive with the hard evidence, science and logic. "When you have ruled out all the probably, only the improbable remains" - kind of a quote from Sherlock Holmes.

Evidence that the motorist was directed to stop.

I did not include in this picture the tree blocking any view of the sign from the street.
I did not include in this picture the tree blocking any view of the sign from the street. | Source

Step back and do not steal -- but borrow if you please

This article was written by Eric Dierker. I reserve all rights to this article and desire no duplication without attribution. On the other hand feel free to share the content just let folks know where it came from. Copying it and claiming it as your own would be stupid and subject you to my legal harassment of you. Besides if someone asked you what it meant you would not know so yes it is copyright protected as original work by me. Just leave a comment to ask to use it elsewhere and please share it.

To read more by this fascinating author visit www.thedierkerblog.com, Eric Dierker on Facebook and Pinterest and my sweet blog resipsaloquitor on google blogs

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Rules that are not rooted in common sense are impediments to discovery and discourse. It is just that the legal profession is keen on keeping the wisdom under a veil of mystery to support their being needed.

      Thank you much for your kind comment and support.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Absolutely Graceinus, In legal parlance they are called whores. "battle of the whores" must often happens in matters of medical experts, although not limited there - certainly, in any forensics including accounting and in valuation of things.

      The 703 rule here really is more about how to use the expert testimony and how to tear it down, than about supporting it. I hope it helps us learn valid ways to "attack" another's thesis in order to foster less emotion and antagonism.Thank you very much for gracing the hub.

    • profile image

      graceinus 4 years ago from those of the Ekklesia

      Eric- Sometimes there can be a problem with so called Expert Witnesses in that if hired by the defence will in most cases provide testamony that will lean in the direction in favour of the defence. Many so called expert witnesses are paid for there service to testify in court. There have been in some rare case where two "expert witness" in the same field, one for the defence and one for the DA, will testify and the results are opposite. Then one has to decide on which one to believe.

      Great Hub Eric I'm enjoying the series. God bless.

    • profile image

      Benjamin Chege 4 years ago

      Hi Eric Dierke. Nice hub. Voted up, useful and beautiful. I must admit I like the creativity and the way you have played around with the legal aspects throughout the hub in a manner that can be understood by readers without such knowledge. Keep it up. What else can I say? Enjoy your day

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Michael my man, these are rules that help us rationally evaluate such people like politicians. Think this way. These rules have some foundation pre-AD. Code of Hannurabi and old testament, and Romans and Greeks helped establish these rules. These rules are as much to give us leverage against politicians as they are protective of our rights.

      Note in Rule 703 it tells us just how to go about discrediting an Expert/ authority.

      I can promise you if you follow the logic of these rules it will take some of the heat out of the lies we hear and face everyday -- because it gives us a mechanism to deal with it.

      Thanks for you baby rant - it allowed me to do one of my own ;-)

    • cleaner3 profile image

      cleaner3 4 years ago from Pueblo, Colorado

      I am very skeptical of the system right now , while I watch the politicians lie to our face and ignore what the people really want them to do... they care only for their own power and cronies who want only to feather their own nest ..

      The president .. lies ..actually lies to us from this small screen .. people actually believe this man.. how can anyone believe in the system of rules and evidence that are slanted against the common person.. this is wrong on so many levels .. poverty , joblessness, should be the priority .. but the media in collusion with politicians keep the people distracted on one crisis or another to keep themselves in power

      Our system of is corrupted to the core .. so it makes us very skepitical of rules that they say are even. intended to be fair.. what a joke .!

      thanks for letting me rant on your hub,!

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Me Too!!!

      I hope this one gave us some tools to question that authority with vigor and persuasiveness.

      I was sorry to read your article of the evidence of America's lack of compassion. But it is a must read at: https://hubpages.com/politics/In-Potters-Field-A-M...

    • billybuc profile image

      Bill Holland 4 years ago from Olympia, WA

      I grew up during the Sixties. You better believe I question authority. :) Have a great day buddy.