Admissible
evidence is evidence which can be brought forward in a court of law to support
or undermine a legal case. In order to be considered admissible, evidence must
meet certain standards, with the standards being especially high in criminal
cases. Disputes over the admissibility of evidence often play a role in major
trials, with lawyers from both sides attempting to suppress evidence which does
not favor their case, with the goal of weakening the position of the other
side.
Evidence
can take a number of forms. In all cases, evidence is considered admissible
when it has a bearing on the case, and it can be used to support or disprove
facts which are related to the case. For example, in a murder trial, the
identity of the murder weapon is relevant and important to the case, but the
suspect's history of running out on lease agreements may not be deemed
admissible because it is not relevant to the murder.
In
the case of evidence presented by a witness, admissible evidence includes
evidence from an expert witness discussing the situation and providing
information which is accepted and established in the field. For example, a
forensic anthropologist could testify about examining a set of human remains,
discussing the facts he or she uncovered in the process and presenting his or
her credentials to support the facts provided. By contrast, someone who claims
to have collected facts using methods which are deemed suspect in the field of
forensic anthropology would not be able to testify. Evidence can also be
collected from witnesses who saw the crime or were involved in the
investigation, such as testimony from a police officer who responded to the
scene of a crime, a forensic technician who processed evidence, or a bystander
who watched the crime take place.
Physical
evidence is deemed admissible when it pertains to the case and a clear chain of
custody can be established, with people demonstrating that the evidence is
authentic and that it has been protected to ensure that the integrity is
retained. Evidence which is mishandled or obtained by illegal means is not
admissible evidence, which can be become a big problem in a legal case; there
may be a situation in which evidence is very relevant and important, but it
cannot be discussed in court due to the fact that it was not handled correctly.
Judges
may also consider the issue of “undue prejudice” when evaluating evidence to
determine whether or not it is admissible. If the presentation of evidence
would create an unreasonable bias, the people presenting the evidence may be
obliged to withdraw or adjust it. For instance, in a violent crime, a graphic
description or images of the scene might not be permitted due to concerns about
undue prejudice.
Concerns
about admissible evidence are very important to the people who investigate
crimes. They want to make sure that the evidence they handle is carefully
documented and secured so that it can be used in court. They are especially
careful when they suspect that they may be creating a precedent. When DNA
evidence was first used in court, for example, it was accompanied with ample
expert testimony, meticulous documentation, and a clear discussion of the
techniques used to collect and analyze DNA samples, demonstrating that the
evidence was admissible and laying the groundwork for the future use of DNA as
admissible evidence in legal cases.
<3 FADHLIN SAKINA
<3
Evidence can take a number of forms. In all cases, evidence is considered admissible when it has a bearing on the case, and it can be used to support or disprove facts which are related to the case. For example, in a murder trial, the identity of the murder weapon is relevant and important to the case, but the suspect's history of running out on lease agreements may not be deemed admissible because it is not relevant to the murder.
ReplyDelete