Criteria Admissible evidence

1 criteria

1.1 relevance
1.2 reliability
1.3 issues admissibility of evidence in non-democratic regimes

criteria
relevance

for evidence admissible, must tend prove or disprove fact @ issue in proceeding. however, if utility of evidence outweighed tendency cause fact finder disapprove of party introduced against unrelated reason, not admissible. furthermore, public-policy considerations bar admission of otherwise relevant evidence.

reliability

for evidence admissible enough admitted, party proffering evidence must able show source if evidence makes so. if evidence in form of witness testimony, party introduces evidence must lay groundwork witness s credibility , knowledge. hearsay barred lack of reliability. if evidence documentary, party proffering evidence must able show authentic, , must able demonstrate chain of custody original author present holder. trial judge performs gatekeeping role in excluding unreliable testimony. united states supreme court first addressed reliability requirement experts in landmark case daubert v. merrell dow pharmaceuticals, inc.. court laid out 4 non-exclusive factors trial courts may consider when evaluating scientific expert reliability: (1) whether scientific evidence has been tested , methodology has been tested; (2) whether evidence has been subjected peer review or publication; (3) whether potential rate of error known; , (4) whether evidence accepted in scientific community. kumho tire co., ltd. v. carmichael later extended daubert analysis include expert testimony. bears effect on verdict of court.

issues admissibility of evidence in non-democratic regimes

in non-democratic legal systems, courts function organs of in power, , rules of evidence designed favor interests. in people s republic of china, example, has been observed courts have historically accepted evidence excluded in other systems, such confessions obtained torture. evidence introduced court itself, rather state, , evidence used part of process of legitimising conclusion had been drawn before trial . these practices have, in theory, been reformed legislation, questions remain whether continue in practice.