Significance of Credible Evidence for the Administration of Justice - Coursework Example

The significance of credible evidence to the administration of justice Number Department Significance ofcredible evidence for the administration of justice The principle of evidence dictates how court attendants provide and then assess the different aspects of attestation at trial. In a number of ways, proof is an expansion of criminal and civil law. Normally, evidence law sets up an array of restrictions that justice systems implement against lawyers in an effort to monitor the different activities that the court process brings out in the open in an environment where the enemy is a member also. There are several arguments that support evidence law; such as the amelioration of insidious suspicion of juries; to promote legal or social issues associated with litigation; to enhance substantive policies disparate to the trial; to establish conditions to obtain the most credible facts in court; and to organize the extent and period of trials. This paper explores the different types and the significance of credible evidence for the administration of justice. Admissibility of evidence Evidence manifests in four main forms: demonstrated evidence; documented evidence; real evidence and testimonial evidence. Whereas some policies regulating evidence are applicable to all four categories, others pertain to less than three or less. It is notable that all of these categories of proof must be permissible, though, prior to being considered as investigative of a matter in a court case. Essentially, if proof is to be considered admissible in court, it has to be pertinent, material, and knowledgeable. To be seen relevant, evidence must have a number of reasonable inclinations to assist prove, or refute some reality. It should not build certainty to the fact, but to some extent, it must be inclined toward the increment or lower the possibility of a number of facts. Once evidence meets the standard measures, the judge or jury, charged with the duty of establishing facts will decide the suitable weight to offer a given piece of proof. An appropriate piece of proof is considered credible if it is tabled to verify a reality that is being argued in a legal proceeding. Credible proof is that fact that accords with particular conventional notions of consistency. Courts are slowly reducing the competency policies guiding evidence by enabling to be looked upon depending on the burden of proof (Gazzaniga [2011] 304 SA 54). Significance of real evidence Real evidence is imperative. Its subsistence or features are believed to be pertinent and subject to a matter before the court. It is normally an issue that was expressly involved in an occurrence in the trial, such as an exhibit of murder, the individual property of an aggrieved party, or an item like a hat or bangle belonging to a criminal suspect. The relevance of the material must be observed in trial before it can be admissible, by a judge. The procedure, in which a lawyer establishes these fundamentals and any extra structures that may be useful, is referred to as laying a foundation for a case (Wang [2008] 5 US-China Law Review 50). Generally, the weight and content of real evidence must be guaranteed. An attorney sets up the evidences credibility by demonstrating that it actually is what it should look like, failure to which it may be deemed by the court. Corroborating evidence is referred to as authentication. Demonstrative Evidence Although, evidence is believed to be demonstrative if it carries the testimony of a live witness, it is deemed permissible when it comparatively and precisely mirrors the witnesss account and is otherwise admissible. Demonstrative evidence includes items such as maps, images of a scene where crime is committed, diagrams and graphs that show incriminating or exonerating particulars (Kennedy, & Wlnn, [2011] 16 DLR 209; Timothy [2008] 72 FB 87; Pardo [2006] 33 AJCL 301). Documentary Evidence Evidence captured in or recorded on retrievable mediums can be an aspect of real proof. For instance, an agreement provided to verify what it contains may be a form of real and documentary proof. When a plaintiff or an accused party introduces a written article into proof, it behoves the party to prove to court that it is credible and remains the same as any other real proof, either made by a witness who has the ability to recognize the article or by court witnesses who can acknowledge a chain of custody for the article (Gutman [2011] 14 LE 1). Nevertheless, when individuals deal with documented proof, it is an excellent idea to look into these four likely downsides: Parole evidence, authentication, best evidence and hearsay. The main principle that guides parole evidence outlaws the admissibility of particular evidence relating to the way written agreement should be treated. In most cases, parole evidence is considered a matter of a substantive decree, rather than a clear evidentiary issue. Documented evidence can be authenticated by an individual in almost the same manner in which it can corroborate other traces of real evidence. Additionally, some types of documents require no thorough scrutiny to authenticate under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). A number of these may include: credible documents to verify the acknowledgment; particular commercial document and related articles; certificates held by the individuals holding business records; credible copies of official records; and media publications (Edmond, & Roach, [2011] 61 UTLJ 343). On the other hand, the rule upon which best evidence is based indicates that by the time the details of a document are introduced into the evidence, the trial chamber will refuse a copy or other evidence contained in the document instead of the original article unless appropriate details are provided for the lack of the original document. Notably, the FRE allows the employment of mechanically generated documents unless any of the adversaries have come up with a legitimate query about the authenticity of the document or can someway indicate that reference to it would be unjust. Further, under the FRE, reviews or compilations of large documented evidence may be accepted into main evidence provided the other individuals have tendered the original documents for examination or scrutiny (Lieberman et al [2008] 14 PPPL 27). Testimony Evidence provided in the form of statement is arguably the most fundamental kind of proof. Testimonial proof comprises what a rational witness in a trial in question voices before the judges. In most cases, witnesses are deemed credible if they satisfy four major thresholds: if they have taken the oath and value the oath; if the witnesses are knowledgeable enough on the main theme of their statement; if the witnesses can remember what was thought in a trial; and if the witnesses have the capacity to express their perception. The courts understand competency in a fairly liberal manner. This implies that testimony provided by a competent witness forma the basis of the trial evidence. In case witnesses fail to remember their testimony at trial, the lawyer may assist them with refreshing their reminiscence though four methods: first, by requesting for a court recess; second, channelling express questions to the witnesses; third, through refreshing past recollection; and finally, by offering a written document to the witness (Pardo [2006] 33 AJCL 301; Blackwell, & Burns [2008] 5 SJCJ 158). Leading Questions A leading question essentially indicates an express answer or replaces the language of the lawyer carrying out the question exercise. Although, most leading questions require short answers, not all queries that need precise answers such as "yes" or "no" fall under the category of leading questions. The jury reserves the right to authorize leading questions when a witness is undergoing direct examination. Nonetheless, the situation can only be allowed if the court needs to know the following issues: simple background matters; if the practice will assist toward trigger the witness testimony of an individual who cannot adequately pass the evidence to the court (Kriksciunas et al 2011 NEL 25). In most cases, issues relating to aging, illness, or limited intelligence or command of language, often hinder proper communication of witness evidence. Leading questions may also be channelled to an adverse witness. Adverse witnesses are individuals whose interests or kindness may compromise their testimony. Generally, an adverse witness or a party in a case, whose has close ties with a hostile party is believed to hostile too under this principle. Questions that need a long narrative reply much different from leading questions (Hunter [2005] 12 IJLP 3). Such questions usually produce long accounts that can delay a trial process. Although long narrations are credited for elaborating grey areas of a case before the court, questions that need long narrations are out of favour in trial and should be shunned (Bradshaw & Price [2007] 16 JCN 98). During cross-examination, lawyers may only direct questions that touch on the issues that arose when a witness was undergoing direct examination. These include issues such as credibility of the exhibits and statements. If cross-examiners introduce new issues, the arbitrators may not prevent them from doing, especially if there is enough time and the need for more elaboration of some issues (Kemper et al [2011] 21 PA 1460). Nevertheless, the questioning should be friendlier and not driven by emotions, as witness harassment is an injustice, thus not allowed under any conditions. The Lay Opinion Rule Witnesses must respond to questions by offering accounts of their experiences. These include what they saw, tasted, heard, touched, and or smelled. In most cases, witnesses are not allowed to state their mind or express conclusions. The FRE rules may allow an individual who is not giving his testimony as a proficient individual to offer his account as a judgment if the estimation is both realistically based on his or her insight and contributes toward elaborating the witnesss accounts. Further, a capable layperson may be allowed to offer opinions on particular topics that are painstakingly allowed by rule, law, or case law. These may include; another individuals identity; another individuals sanity; mood; recognition of handwriting; drunkenness or sobriety; ownership; health-related issues; speed, expanse, and size; the essence of a witnesss individual property (Porter et al [2010] 16 PCL 477). Conversely, testimony based on an individual’s opinion is not basically refutable even if such accounts proceed to the eventual likelihood to be determined in the trial. Extrinsic evidence includes proof other than the witness accounts whose testimony is scrutinized by court. It may be guaranteed to verify facts linked to charging a witness. Further, apart from extrinsic proof, a party may censure the competence of another adversarial witness by trying to demonstrate that the person is or has favouritism, prejudice, fraud or interest in the issue; has unlawful convictions; delivered inconsistent statements before; and is a peddles lies and cannot be trusted by the court (Winter [2011] 98 JBE 297; Kuchler [2010] 60 FDCC-Q 151). There are a number of restrictions that apply in interrogating a witness regarding a past criminal conviction. Nevertheless, the FRE stipulates that a witness may be subjected to questioning about criminal culpability when the offense was punished by a jail term of more than one year or revolved around fraud or inaccurate account such as false swearing. Prior to the use and incorporation of such proof in a trial, the concerned court participants must be aware of the legal confines within which they should operate. The FRE permits questions about past criminal record of a witness to censure that witnesss competence where; in the trial authority, the questions will enhance the acquisition of the truth. Therefore, a lawyer channels questions to a witness with questionable character if the witness has given prior inconsistent accounts. The questioning attorney must, however, demonstrate a good faith for convincing the court that the witness issued an inconsistent account. The witness reserves the right to have his or her memory refreshed, so they could recall when, where, and situations under which the prior witness account was issued (Barsky [2009] 88 CW 69). In case the statement is documented, a duplicate of the records must be given to the opposing attorney upon demand. Another way through which the witness testimony may be censured is to demonstrate that the person has a quality of lies. This exit from the fundamental rule indicates a party in trial may not offer proof of a witnesss disposition to indicate that the person acted in line with that temperament. The FRE allows proof to deduce a witness prefers to lie (Wyburn [2009] 7 JCLL 37). Circumstantial evidence and hearsay Whereas circumstantial evidence connotes indirect proof that points to the subsistence of the need fact under investigation, but fails to verify an issue; hearsay involves a casual witness statement of the evidence law used to prove a piece of evidence that has been tabled. Unlike hearsay that is inadmissible in court, circumstantial evidence offers leads to an issue. The latter encompasses all kinds of proof tabled in trial, though, before they have been subjected to scrutiny through inference. Hearsay is also imperative in common law in that and under legal parameters within which evidence is handled; there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay principle (Bouhaïk-Gironès et al [2008] 5 SJCJ 158; Bradshaw, & Price [2007] 16 JCN 98). Conclusion Evidence defines the direction of a case, hence should be credible at all cost to guarantee justice during trial. Witness should present themselves before the court, when needed to help with the elaboration of unclear areas and to aid in the identification of exhibits and issuing of testimony. This physical attendance allows the jury to assess the integrity of the witness and establish how much essence to append on his or her testimony. Appellate courts usually use already existing evidence to administer justice. These authenticities of the facts are believed to have been ascertained by lower courts and only the legal issues are at stake. Evidence should, therefore, be gathered, authenticated and preserved to guarantee the plaintiff and the accused justice. References Barsky, A.E. ‘The Legal and Ethical Context for Knowing and Using the Latest Child Welfare Research,’ [2009] 88 CW 69. Porter et al. ‘Dangerous decisions: the impact of first impressions of trustworthiness on the evaluation of legal evidence and defendant culpability,’ [2010] 16 PCL 477. Blackwell, S., & Burns, R.G. ‘Law Enforcement Responses to Burglar Alarms in Texas,’ [2008] 5 SJCJ 158. Bouhaïk-Gironès et al. ‘Legal Theory, Legal Practice and Drama (1200-1600),’ [2011] 5 LH 75-95. Bradshaw, A., & Price, L. ‘Rectal suppository insertion: the reliability of the evidence as a basis for nursing practice,’ [2007] 16 JCN 98. Edmond, G., & Roach, K. ‘A contextual approach to the admissibility of the states forensic science and medical evidence,’ [2011] 61 UTLJ 343. Gazzaniga, M.S. ‘Neuroscience in the Courtroom,’ [2011] 304 SA 54. Winter, R. ‘The Principled Legal Firm: Insights into the Professional Ideals and Ethical Values of Partners and Lawyers,’ [2011] 98 JBE 297. Gutman, J. ‘Litigation as a Measure of Last Resort: Opportunities and Challenges for Legal Practitioners with the Rise of ADR,’ [2011] 14 LE 1. Wang, Y. ‘Predicament and approach: Study on the "new evidence" system in civil action in China,’ [2008] 5 US-China Law Review 50. Kriksciunas et al. ‘Practice of Establishment of Evidence in Cases of Administrative Offences,’ [2011] 2011 NEL 25. Hunter, R. ‘Discrimination against women barristers: Evidence from a study of court ‘appearances and briefing practices,’ [2005] 12 IJLP 3. Kemper et al. ‘Towards evidence-based pharmacotherapy in children,’ [2011] 21 PA 1460. Kennedy, A., & Wlnn, S. ‘Using Technology to Increase Support for Rural and Regional Legal Professionals,’ [2011] 16 DLR 209. Kuchler, DD. ‘An In-Depth Look at Direct Examination of Expert Witnesses,’[2010] 60 FDCC-Q 151. Lieberman et al. ‘Gold versus platinum: Do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence?’ [2008] 14 PPPL 27. Pardo, M.S. ‘Neuroscience Evidence, Legal Culture, and Criminal Procedure,’ [2006] 33 AJCL 301. Timothy P. ‘Evidence-based Practices in Federal Pretrial Services,’ [2008] 72 FB 87. Wyburn, M. ‘The Confusion in Defining Plagiarism in Legal Education and Legal Practice in Australia,’ [2009] 7 JCLL 37. Read More