Monir , Law of Evidence 15th, Universal Law Publishing, New Delhi 2010 115. Other admissibility rules are also more accurately seen as targeted at forms of reasoning and not types of facts. Certain classes of facts which, in ordinary life, are relied upon as logically relevant are rejected by law as legally irrelevant. On one interpretation, the standard of proof is a probabilistic threshold. You will come across with further differences throughout your study of this course. For the sake of simplicity, let A and B be mutually independent events.
Medieval understandings of evidence in the age of trial by ordeal would be quite alien to modern sensibilities Ho 2003—2004 and there is no approach to evidence and proof that is shared by all legal systems of the world today. First, the theory portrays the assessment of plausibility as an exercise of judgment that involves employment of various criteria such as coherence, consistency, simplicity, consilience and more. There is a deeper problem with the probabilistic conception of the standard of proof. The first two aspects of weight are familiar to legal practitioners but the third has been confined to academic discussions. As an example is hearsay evidence which is excluded even though it is relevant. The puzzle is why this is so. Relevance is a relational concept.
The Law of Evidence, in all its complex glory, naturally revolves around two cardinal things: facts and proof. But suppose the blood type is less common and only 25% of the suspect population has it. There fore, unlike civil cases, in criminal cases the task of determining the conclusive nesses of judicial admission is left to the discretion of the court. This state of affairs reflects the key difference between civil and criminal proceeding. On the probabilistic theory of relevance that we have considered, A is relevant to B. It is said to raise a number of paradoxes Cohen 1977; Allen 1986, 1991; Allen and Leiter 2001; Redmayne 2008.
In these circumstances, it is intuitively unjust to find him liable Cohen 1977: 75. On the generalisation that there is no smoke without fire, the fact that a person claimed that p in a statement made out-of-court does or can have a bearing on the probability that p, and p may be logically relevant to a material fact in the dispute. The conventional view is that relevance in law is a binary concept: evidence is either relevant or it is not. Copyright © Inbrief, All Rights Reserved. For instance, it may be relevant as to the state of mind of the person hearing the statement, and his state of mind may be material to his defence of having acted under duress. How can this be so? The admissibility under this section must, in each case, depend on how near is the connection of the facts sought to be proved with facts in issue and to what degree do they render facts in issue probable or improbable when taken with the other facts in case.
He acknowledged that a policeman or a lawyer engaged in preparing a case would be negligent if he were to shut his ears to hearsay. As a general rule, the court will not rely on hearsay as a premise for an inference towards the truth of what is asserted. Section 11 deals with those facts which are not otherwise relevant but become relevant if they are inconsistent with any relevant fact or they make the existence or non-existence of any relevant fact highly probably or improbable. There is also a difference between civil and criminal proceedings regarding proof by admissions. Since a judge cannot realistically be expected to erase the evidence from his mind once he has decided to exclude it, there seems little point in excluding the evidence; we might as well let the evidence in and allow judge to give the evidence the probative value that it deserves Mnookin 2006; Damaška 2006; cf.
While due to the very nature of ways of committing a crime, the public prosecutor mostly proves his allegation by providing an expert and lay witnesses. The next section discusses general arguments for and against exclusionary or admissibility rules. To put simply, the legal burden of proving a fact in issue in a civil trial is on the party that asserts that fact. A fact in issue is something a party alleges to exist and the other party denies this is the disputed fact, which can only be resolved by the help of evidence. The relative plausibility theory itself is perceived to have a number of shortcomings. On one suggestion, the court does not have to search for the optimal reference class. Here, the defendant may admit half of the plaintiffs claim and deny the rest.
Nonetheless, the judge are still given the discretion to disallow the evidence to be admitted if it thinks that it would operate unfairly against the accused, though this is rarely exercised by the judges. There is doubt as to the historical accuracy of this account; at any rate, it does not appear capable of explaining the growth of all exclusionary rules Morgan 1936—37; Nance 1988: 278—294. These three conditions of receivability are discussed in turn below. Summary judgment is a judgment on the merits of the case without a trial. This topic is explored in below but it is convenient at this juncture to illustrate how the reference class problem can also arise in this connection.
It was noted earlier that evidence is either relevant or not, and, on the prevailing understanding, it is relevant so long as the likelihood ratio deviates from 1:1. We have just considered the first condition of receivability, namely, relevance. Hence, a probability of liability of greater than 0. The third criticism is targeted at holistic theories of evidential reasoning in general and not specifically at the relative plausibility theory. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. They claim that this theory has the advantage of avoiding the reference class problem because it does not attempt to quantify probative value Pardo 2005: 374—383; Pardo and Allen 2008: 261, 263; Pardo 2013: 600—601. There are no mandatory rules requiring the exclusion of evidence in civil cases.