RT @crimlacy: #ONCA extensive
consideration of admissibility of received text messages as hearsay, adoptive admissions or found in possessi...
Not exact matches
As the education philosopher Francis Schrag notes, when evaluating (as opposed to doing) empirical research, «normative
considerations appear to be decisive in determining the
admissibility of facts and in providing a lens through which these facts are filtered.»
The Court formulated a new standard for the
admissibility of eye witness testimony which, inter alia, mandated that such testimony be excluded if the defendant can prove — based on system and / or estimator variables — that the «probative value
of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice, confusion
of the issues, misleading the jury, or by
considerations of undue delay or needless presentation
of cumulative evidence» (44 - 5).
I would suggest that
consideration of the rule is an essential requirement in every determination
of the
admissibility of evidence, whether at the preliminary hearing or trial stage.
In acquitting Mr. Paterson, the Court further found that
considerations of voluntariness and the common law confessions have no operation during a Charter voir dire to ascertain the
admissibility of evidence at trial.
At this point, relevance, necessity, reliability and absence
of bias can helpfully be seen as part
of a sliding scale where a basic level must first be achieved in order to meet the
admissibility threshold and thereafter continue to play a role in weighing the overall competing
considerations in admitting the evidence.
Relevance, necessity, reliability and absence
of bias can helpfully be seen as part
of a sliding scale where a basic level must first be achieved in order to meet the
admissibility threshold and thereafter continue to play a role in weighing the overall competing
considerations in admitting evidence.
It contains an up - to - the - minute, detailed
consideration of the governing legal principles
of: Mareva injunctions; fraudulent preferences; the
admissibility of subjective intent and drafts in interpreting releases; and the test for summary judgment.
Taken into
consideration with the haste with which officials reached the conclusion that Mr. Galloway was inadmissible and took steps to have him barred before the assessment
of his
admissibility was completed, these statements could have supported findings
of bias and bad faith against the respondents.