Evidence in a Formal Way to See Evidence of Life.
This boy has just given us evidence that jumping in dirty puddle is fun.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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