Expert Witness Evidence

During a court hearing or trial, witnesses are called to present testimony. Although most witnesses are lay people with relevant knowledge to share with the court, a court expert witness is different. The expert witness is someone who is called by the court or one of the parties involved to provide testimony to assist the court in ruling on an issue that is not obvious or common knowledge to a layperson. A court expert witness is hired and paid by one of the people related to the matter being considered by the court, and therefore must show expertise to the court's satisfaction before being designated as such. These types of witnesses are called in many different types of cases for a variety of reasons. In a divorce, an expert witness is often called to clarify the value of property, or to provide expert witness testimony as to the best option for child custody based on home studies or psychological evaluations. During personal injury cases, expert witnesses are called to testify as to the past, present, or future medical condition or prognosis of an injured person. Expert witnesses can also provide witness testimony as to the likelihood of a sick or injured party being able to obtain and maintain gainful employment, the value of past and future lost wages, or potential cost of future medical bills. In criminal cases, forensic experts are often called to offer the court and jury translation and application of technical and scientific data related to evidence that may not be easily analysed or understood by the layperson.

Relevant Evidence In Court

Relevant evidence is evidence that is admissible in court based on the fact that it directly pertains to proving the case at hand. It is distinct from irrelevant evidence, which is inadmissible in a court of law since it serves no function. The question of what evidence is relevant depends on the case at hand.

Whether a civil or criminal case is being tried, there are generally several elements that go into determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. For example, first degree murder is defined as the willful, malicious, premeditated and deliberate killing of a victim. Thus, in order for a prosecutor to prove that a defendant is guilty of premeditated murder, he must prove that the action was willful or intentional, that the defendant committed the killing to be malicious, that he planned it beforehand, that he committed the murder on purpose and that the victim was actually killed. If the prosecutor cannot prove malice, for example, or premeditation, the murder may be considered second degree murder instead.

The Best Evidence Rule

The best evidence rule can be traced back to 18th-century Great Britain and continues to be part of many legal systems, including the United States'. The original purpose of the rule was to prevent altered evidence, whether intentionally altered or accidentally altered, from being admitted in a court of law as evidence. Although the best evidence rule continues to be a part of the current United States federal Rules of Evidence, the original purpose has become somewhat obsolete and its practical application is complicated in the electronic age.

Question Of Fact In Law

A question of fact is a legal issue or dispute over a material fact in a case. This is a distinct from a question of law, which requires the use of legal principles to resolve. If there is a question of fact, a judge or jury, also known as triers of fact, will be impaneled to resolve the question at hand.

Whether a dispute is a question of fact or of law can be somewhat confusing. Usually, most examples of a question of fact will ask if and how an event or action occurred, whereas a question of law will ask if an event or action was legal. For instance, a question of law might ask if defendant Joe shooting and killing his wife is premeditated murder or a crime of passion. A question of fact, in contrast, would ask if defendant Joe shot and killed his wife.

Introduction To The Law Of Evidence

WHAT EVIDENCE IS?

Most lawyers and students think of evidence as a collection of rules governing what facts may be proved in court, what materials may be placed before the court to prove those facts, and the form in which those materials should be placed before the court. What they have in mind is the law of evidence, but not evidence itself. One of the curiosities of the common law is the emergence of rules of evidence whose purpose is not to enable a party to bring before the court evidence which might help his case, but to prohibit a party from bringing some kinds of evidence if his opponent objects, or even if the court itself refuses to permit it. Because of the demands made by the realities of practice, it is only natural that familiarity with the rules should be emphasized. What is taught and examined in the field of evidence is the law of evidence. Yet there is a whole field of inquiry which relates to evidence itself, rather than the law of evidence. The field is a fascinating mixture of logic, epistemology, sociology, psychology, and the forensic sciences, and is, therefore,

wide enough to encompass a vast library of its own. Its concern is the use of evidence as material

in the reconstruction of past events.