Rules Of Evidence

Question: Why The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence? The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. Article 19 of the Statutes of the International Military Tribunal (in reality: the Inter-allied Military Tribunal) at Nuremberg The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge, but shall take judicial notice thereof. Article 21 of the Statutes No one, not even those individuals who regard the Third Reich with nostalgia, denies the existence of concentration camps under Hitler. Everyone also recognizes that certain camps were equipped with crematory ovens: instead of being buried, the corpses were reduced to ashes. The repeated occurrence of epidemics made cremation necessary, especially for those who had died of typhus (see the photos of mass graves at Belsen et cetera). What is disputed by numerous French, British, American, and German authors is the existence of "extermination camps." This expression is used by historiographers to refer to those camps that were supposed to have been equipped with "gas chambers." Allegedly, these "gas chambers" were different from American gas chambers in that they were used to kill hundreds of men, women, and children at a time. Because the victims were chosen because of their race or religion, this is referred to as "genocide." The poison employed in this "genocide" is said to have been Zyklon B (a pesticide based upon prussic or hydrocyanic acid). The Grappler, I appreciate your honest analysis and I do not support any genocide or mass murder by anyone in the past or present time. However, even if I take your benchmark then successive generations of Israelis are guilty of ethnically cleansing, massacring, maiming and murdering Palestinians! Most importantly Israelis got bigger guns (like Hitler) and they are not doing anything to make peace with the Palestinians because they can afford it! Either way, the Israelis can not wash their hands and they are guilty.

Answer: Pretty much what you've said, I guess. Simply that the Tribunal would not have to prove to the normal legal standard those things that were, as it says, common knowledge, such as the existence of the extermination camps (something which the Allies didn't really comment on until, I believe, around 1944, and the Vatican not at all apparently). Obviously, this was to expedite hearings, and not allow them to be bogged down in petty argument over everyday things. Maybe there was a little self-aggrandisement there, this wanting to appear to only deal with lofty issues, and perhaps more than a little desire to get the trials done quickly and get on to punishing those found guilty. As for the rest, I'm not sure if you are saying that extermination camps, as such, didn't exist. Look, even inducing a high mortality rate through epidemics, starvation, lack of heating, inadequate clothing and bedding, poor health facilities, etc, thus requiring cremation ovens of the size and number reported, clearly indicates a policy of genocide, thus making them extermination camps in any real sense. Have you seen the Allied, mainly US and British, footage of the human wraiths they recovered from these camps, and the stacks of corpses? Even if these people were simply left to die without food by guards who ran away, which is extremely doubtful when their condition was clearly the result of long term starvation, that is a major crime. The fact that, from memory, less than 10% of Russian prisoners survived in the hands of the Nazis is a good indication here of both attitudes and policies towards prisoners, and, believe me, they weren't all killed in Allied bombing. One thing I do know is that part of my family came from North Germany some 160 years ago, and they were Jewish. No records survive of any relatives that I can find.

Question: How would this work within the rules of evidence? Mike tells Bob about the crime. Mike dies, and Bob is ordered to testify to provide evidence. What I'm trying to go for is hearsay, but if Mike is dead, would that be an exception? Can the state/Crown object to this? If you have some case law (preferably Canadian, if not, that's cool too), that would be even better. Thanks in advance. You gave a good scenario that I didn't think of, but I was actually thinking of Mike dying suddenly. Any thoughts on that?

Answer: I am not an attorney and my knowledge is limited to US law. In most cases, Mike's death would not get around the hear-say rules. If Mike told Bob, KNOWING he was dying, the 'dying declaration' exception may apply. The opposing party can ALWAYS object. I just don't know if the court will sustain the objection.

Question: Does this violate the rules of evidence? Can the findings of fact from another, but different trial be introduced as evidence in a 2nd trial? Assume the evidence that was used in the 1st trial was not introduced in the 2nd trial - only the findings from the 1st trial.

Answer: I also agree with the above. However, this seems to be a homework question. If so, you should say that so everyone knows what is happening and you can't be accused of cheating on your assignment. Cheers!!

Question: Institution of rules regarding evidence? Discuss the reasoning for the institution of rules regarding evidence in criminal proceedings in the United States. This is all they have stated to do a two to four page paper on this. I need help on what to write this on. If possible please help me on where I shall go with this paper.

Answer: A little homework huh? The instituting of "rules of evidence" were created to preclude false evidence being presented. It also precludes police from using evidence obtained without a warrant..."fruit of the poisonous tree" idea. The whole idea of rules of evidence stems from English Common Law. When evidence is collected, there is what is called a "chain of evidence". The means the person who say finds a casing (empty shell) will bag and tag it and SIGN that he/she did in fact discover said casing and where. He/she will then turn it over to either detectives who will also sign that they received it. They usually end up putting in an evidence locker and the evidence caretaker will sign he/she received it and the detective will also sign off that he/she left with the evidence clerk....so on and so forth. Evidence collected without a warrant are subject to challenge by defense attorneys. Although the evidence is generally valid, it is HOW it was obtained that counts. There are rules as to what constitutes admissable evidence for a reason. In years past cops have been known to plant evidence. To offset this illegal practice...rules were instituted requiring a strict "chain of evidence" as well as the obtaining of warrants. There are times when evidence is obtained in conjunction with an arrest. That is usually perfectly legal and admissable. However, depending on where a perp is arrested will also dictate what can and cannot be searched without a warrant. For instance...if perp is arrested on public street...the cops can't just go and search his residence because he was arrested. They MUST obtain a search warrant stipulating what they are looking for and where they are going to be searching. They can search his person subsequent to the arrest, but that's it till warrant is obtained. Courts have taken a hard line on "habeous corpus" (fruits of the crime) because there have been so many cases tainted by either bad evidence collection and/or planted evidence. Rules of evidence are a good thing. While we want to see criminals pay for their crimes, cops must also be held accountable for proper evidence collection and control. Defense attorneys are paid very well to refute all aspects of evidence. One LITTLE screw up can cause a case to be thrown out. One must also remember, it's not just how well the police do their jobs or a prosecutor presents a case, there are also "case laws" that attorneys use to challenge evidence. A case law is another case that has gone through the courts to the state supreme court and/or SCOTUS. The ruling from these courts can dictate the outcome of future cases. So, it is incumbent on all parties involved to make sure ALL rules of evidence are strictly adhered to. Authenticity of evidence, collection procedures and identification, chain of evidence, hearsay, etc. will be under scrutiny in a trial. Remember also, there are federal rules of evidence as well as state rules. These rules can also differ from one jurisdiction to another. They can also be at the mercy of judges. No two judges will rule the same neccessarily. Where one judge may allow certain evidence another may exclude it. Of course it can be challenged upon appeal. Lastly, military tribunals are not always bound by civilian rules of evidence in ALL trials. They use the UCMJ and questionable evidence can be entered in the proceedings. Constitutional rights MUST be adhered to, but evidence in a military trial can be "ify" at times. Good luck...:)

Question: Can you think of a modern situation where hysteria and faulty rules of evidence sent innocent people 2 prison?

Answer: Political rivelry is rampant in Kerala. Most of the murders are for political reasons. The real culprit evades arrest and instead of him some innocent man will bebooked. Then evidence will be concocted by the police on a weak first information report. The real murderer escaped punishment and an innocent man was sentenced to life imprisonment by the court. Then the politicalparty invested a huge amount to file an appeal in the appex court and at last he too was exonerated. Evidence act is often misused with the help of the police. U.K.Atiyodi, Kandangali, Payyanur Kerala, India

Question: According to the Texas Rules of Evidence can a wife or a husband testify in behalf of his or her spouse ? In a civil or criminal case.

Answer: A spouse can not be forced to testify against their spouse in civil or criminal cases, unless a third party was present. However, a spouse can revoke their right and testify against or on behalf of their spouse. Yet this is generally not recognized, since they are considered bias.

Question: What is the impact of breaching the rules of evidence?

Answer: I think you mean, " chain of custody". Evidence can be thrown out of court. The least amount of people to handle the evidence the better. When you collect evidence you process it accordingly, and turn it in to the evidence locker. Make sure you get a signature from the officer in charge. I will not go into how to collect and process evidence, that is a different question. If you are talking about illegally obtaining evidence, you may loose the case and your job.

Question: How does the Frye test, Daubert, Federal Rules of Evidence work together or relate?

Answer: Frye is a standard within the scientific community, while Daubert is the Court decides if there is enough reliability for it to be admissible. Now, since Daubert is now the Federal Standard, Frye has fallen back to just being information for the Federal Judge to consider. It is weighed with other information. That is the Federal use for its admissibility. States are free to choose there own, like California uses what is called the Kelly-Frye standard.

Question: What are the Federal rules of evidence in the United states legal system? Please put sources

Answer: Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) govern the admission of facts by which parties in the federal courts of the United States may prove their cases. They were the product of protracted academic, legislative, and judicial examination before they were formally promulgated in 1975. For that reason, they serve as a model for the rules of evidence used in state court systems, as well as a teaching tool in American law schools. Although they were formally adopted by the U.S. Congress, states are free to adopt different rules of evidence. Because they govern the initial presentation of evidence in a trial, the Rules are primarily aimed at federal trial courts rather than appellate courts. Appellate courts do, however, monitor the application of the rules to ensure consistent application and coherent development of the federal common law of evidence.

Question: What are the Federal Rules of Evidence, and why are they needed?

Answer: A set of rules governing the admission of evidence in federal courts. They are needed so that all parties will have the same rules and the rules will not vary between judges. They provide for such things as exclusion of hearsay and the exceptions to that rule. They provide little rules like a photograph cannot be admitted until someone establishes that is accurate -- that is has not been doctored.

Question: Why are America's rules of evidence are more restrictive than those established by other countries?

Answer: Often, this is because our Bill of Rights contains specific guarantees that make it impermissible to use some kinds of evidence. For example, the Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect us from unreasonable intrusions ("searches and seizures") done without a court's permission; that means a prosecutor can not use evidence obtained without the proper court permission, or even other evidence that was obtained because of the wrongly acquired information (the "fruit of the poison tree" doctrine). The Fifth Amendment ensures us that we can not be forced to testify against ourselves; this means, for instance, that a person convicted of a crime can not be required to testify as a witness at his own trial. The Bill of Rights was written by people who knew history, who knew that governments tend to increase their power at the expense of individuals, so they took special care to ensure that Americans would have individual liberty. It is most necessary to "stack the deck" in favor of the individual when a person is standing trial, with money, or freedom, or life itself at stake.

Question: How would I find the Rules of Evidence for New Mexico on Westlaw...please help!!!?

Answer: This link will get you the New Mexico rules of evidence but if you want West Law you would have to jog on to their Web site pay a fee and search for the information.~ State Rules of Evidence State Rules of Evidence. State. State Rules of Evidence. Statutory ... Rules Of Evidence. New Mexico. New Mexico Rules Of Evidence. Click on Statutes: Rules: Set ... http://www.expertpages.com/news/state_rules_of_evidence.htm - 50k - Cached

Question: Do state rules of evidence override your U.S. rights to present a defense? Chester County Pa. Court of Common Pleas denied admission of defendants (me) PBT test results that would have shown that I was not under the influence of alcohol. Police did not request a blood screen.

Answer: Unlikely to find an expert on the state of PA rules of evidence to give an approximate answer The Judge must have given some reason to reject the test; if its in error your recourse is to move to appeal the decision based upon the judge not following the proper rule of evidence for PA, but in the US this is not a cheap route an appeal can easily run 7K

Question: What are the rules of evidence in Maryland concerning a civil suit of $10,000? (not considered small claims)?

Answer: they are the same rules of evidence that would apply to any civil case: http://expertpages.com/news/state_rules_of_evidence.htm

Question: What does the parol evidence rule do? A.It limits the ability of parties to written contracts from introducing certain evidence related to the contract. B.It sets the general rules for the admissability of evidence in criminal actions. C.It determines which contracts are required to be in writing. D.It sets the rules for admissibility of evidence relating to releasing a criminal from a prison term.

Answer: a

Question: PLease answer if you're familiar with the federal rules of evidence? Why is evidence of misdemeanor convictions is more likely to be admitted for impeachment purposes than evidence of felong convictions? i know it has something to do with Rule 609, but i'd a little explanation. thanks in advance felony** srry about that

Answer: I would assume because it's less likely to unfairly prejudice the jury. A felon is someone who's committed a felony, and we have preconceptions about them. Someone who has committed a misdemeanor is simply over 20 or so right?

Question: Do the Colorado Rules of Evidence mirror the Federal Rules of Evidence?

Answer: an odd question....but yes they are largely similar One notable exception is that CO does not have the controversial Evidence of Similar Crimes in Sexual Assault Cases/ Molestation cases. See FRE 413, 414, 415 Also, CO's rape shield law is not part of the rules but exists elsewhere as a statutory provision. compare them...

Question: Civil Court Rules of Evidence? I'd like to submit certain documents to support arguments in a complaint (US District Court). Is there any resources that explain basics of rules of evidence?

Answer: The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) govern the admission of facts by which parties in the federal courts of the United States may prove their cases. states are free to adopt different rules of evidence. America------RULES OF EVIDENCE http://books.google.com/books?id=HO6aELtLWgAC&pg=PA315&lpg=PA315&dq=american+basics+of+rules+of+evidence&source=web&ots=oQ2lQih8Cg&sig=TzCC-Yqsyj9TgSv18FMfCOBJAsU&hl=en US District Court ---RULES OF EVIDENCE http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/rulepage.html Canada------------RULES OF EVIDENCE http://www.rcmp-learning.org/iim/ecdi1021.htm

Question: Concerns with family Court conflicting evidence rules also? I can not believe how the family courts do nothing regarding visitation contempt issues. I have been in an endless loop of court hearings and nothing is ever done regarding actual contempt. My moms funeral and daddys day at work plus not seeing kids regularly isn't enough to prove contempt that i dont see my kids as i should. Why do the court clerks tell us we can give evidence when we get to court , then we get to court and judges tell us you can't submit that evidence now. Do I need a lawyer or rules on providing evidence? Thanks for any advice or anyone else experiencing lack of contempt or enforcement of visitation ? A sad Dad :(

Answer: Hire a lawyer.Look for legal aid if cannot afford.

Question: Why, under the “parol evidence rule,” do the courts refuse to admit “outside evidence” such as testimony, that? Why, under the “parol evidence rule,” do the courts refuse to admit “outside evidence” such as testimony, that contradicts the terms of a written contract between two parties?

Answer: The PER helps to enforce the finality and enforceability of a written agreement. You might also wikify statute of frauds.