There are many
complex rules of evidence, which determine what is admissible in court, and what isn't.
Not exact matches
«This study provides convincing
evidence that people can perform
complex rule - based operations unconsciously,» says François Ric at the University
of Bordeaux, France.
In CFE v. New York, Judge Leland DeGrasse
ruled that an adequate education included the «foundational skills that students need to become productive citizens capable
of civic engagement and sustaining competitive employment,» the «intellectual tools to evaluate
complex issues, such as campaign finance reform, tax policy, and global warming,» the ability to «determine questions
of fact concerning DNA
evidence, statistical analyses, and convoluted financial fraud.»
Its high cost, dependence upon the quality
of electronic records management, interdependence with admissibility
of evidence rules and practices, and development
of TAR (technology aided review) software, which in itself raises many
complex issues, will maintain disclosure and discovery's importance to all litigators for many years to come.
[15] In this regard, I consider this kind
of factual
evidence to be analogous to those matters described by Madam Justice Garson as being «more in the nature
of observations» as opposed to inferences having
complex interpretive or diagnostic components when she described how their inclusion in records sought to be admitted as business records did not offend
Rule 40A in Egli v. Egli, 2003 BCSC 1716 at para. 25 which was relied on by the defendant in submissions.
A
complex set
of rules and guidelines govern which types
of evidence may be introduced during trial and how
evidence must be presented.
The authors
of McWilliams» Canadian Criminal
Evidence observe that «[f] or more than two centuries the common law has woven a web
of complex rules and exceptions