Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
Sorry, but I have to retract the idea where I mock defend the R's. The only game in town, for me anyway, is the mock trial in absentia of a pseudonym defendant.
Rules of evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Rules of evidence govern whether, when, how, and for what purpose proof of a case may be placed before a trier of fact for consideration.
In the legal systems of Canada and the United States, the trier of fact may be a judge or a jury, depending on the purpose of the trial and the choices of the parties.
The rules of evidence developed over several centuries and are based upon the rules from Anglo-American common Law brought to the New World by early settlers. Their purpose is to be fair to both parties, disallowing the raising of allegations without a basis in provable fact. They are sometimes criticized as a legal technicality, but are an important part of the system for achieving a just result.
Prevailing in court requires a good understanding of the rules of evidence in the given venue. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction. One reason to have a lawyer, among others, is that he or she should be familiar with the rules of evidence. If one were allowed simply to tell the court what one knew to be the truth, and how one knew it, one might prevail. However, the rules of evidence may prohibit one from presenting one's story just as one likes.
Perhaps the most important of the Rules of Evidence is that hearsay testimony is inadmissible (although there are many exceptions to this rule). This makes it impossible for the accuser to induce friends or family to give false evidence in support of their accusations because, normally, this evidence would be rejected by the presiding authority or judge. There are several examples where presiding authorities are not bound by the rules of evidence. These include the military tribunals established by the United States of America and tribunals used in Australia to try health professionals.
Some important rules involve relevance, privilege, witnesses, opinions, expert testimony, hearsay, authenticity, identification and rules of physical evidence.
Holdon,
In laymans terms or in a nutshell, what are you saying? I feel that you are saying that I am favoring Dave before any proceeding. I am certainly not a legal expert. And I plan on doing things not just by law, but what I deem right or wrong or relevant versus non relevant. And I want help. I sure as hell don't want to be biased but Dave is the one that really should be worried about my feelings about the case as it stands.
If there's no jury, then I think we need more judges for balance. If there's a jury, then according to another poster, the judges feelings are kept separate from their duty.
You've already started judging.
SD and I were supposed to hash things out first, remember? That was your first instruction.
Hey, SD you've got no shortage of RDI around here. What about a balanced IDI-leaning judge??
BTW, whats good for the goose... How about I defend the R's, and use 3rd-party culpability?
Sorry, but I have to retract the idea where I mock defend the R's. The only game in town, for me anyway, is the mock trial in absentia of a pseudonym defendant.
holdon,
in laymans terms or in a nutshell, what are you saying? I feel that you are saying that i am favoring dave before any proceeding. I am certainly not a legal expert. And i plan on doing things not just by law, but what i deem right or wrong or relevant versus non relevant. And i want help. i sure as hell don't want to be biased but dave is the one that really should be worried about my feelings about the case as it stands.
I am prosecuting, SuperDave is defending. Your last question would be against the forum rules to answer. Its a pseudonym intruder. Its a real person, like a JR or a PR or a JMK but according to the forum rules, can't use their name. Its OK somehow to refer to JR or PR by name but nobody else.
If nothing else, it would show how there are in fact other scenarios, equally if not more plausible than RDI. Its a mock trial of a pseudonym intruder. All we really need is a fence-sitting judge, but SD wants a jury.
Believe me, I AM!
Dave,
One thing I have is integrity. In my career it is necessary. Both you and Holdon came up with this idea and I certainly did not suggest it. I like following this case and listening to ideas and I have opinions. But both of you were asking for someone to volunteer. I don't have be involved but even as IDI, I see myself as the most open-minded poster in this thread. I wish it wasn't that way but feel free to suggest another. I will be happy to help them. I am not offended at all in case you were wondering.
I vote for Roy to be judge...
Sorry, but I have to retract the idea where I mock defend the R's. The only game in town, for me anyway, is the mock trial in absentia of a pseudonym defendant.
I did not see this before. How about Dave making his case to a grand jury to take this thing to trial? I need another IDI to make a case otherwise. Anybody game?
I did not see this before. How about Dave making his case to a grand jury to take this thing to trial? I need another IDI to make a case otherwise. Anybody game?
Dave,
One thing I have is integrity. In my career it is necessary.
Both you and Holdon came up with this idea and I certainly did not suggest it. I like following this case and listening to ideas and I have opinions. But both of you were asking for someone to volunteer. I don't have be involved but even as IDI, I see myself as the most open-minded poster in this thread. I wish it wasn't that way but feel free to suggest another. I will be happy to help them. I am not offended at all in case you were wondering.
I never ever would think you would feel that way from reading your posts. please don't take offense to that.
I have felt you are the most RDI person on this board no matter what the subject. Maybe I don't read enough. :waitasec:
Hey Roy23.
I'll second your nomination. Heck, you volunteered and not many have applied for the position.
Reading your posting history http://www.websleuths.com/forums/search.php?searchid=2185333
and you are an excellent candidate.