He further asserts that the lower court erred in rejecting his proposed «defense of others» jury instruction, and in permitting the prosecution to present cumulative
evidence as rebuttal testimony.
Not exact matches
Capital punishment's lack of demonstrated superiority
as a deterrent (the
evidence for its effectiveness being at best mixed), the capacity of society to protect itself equally well by permanently imprisoning those who are currently being executed (which is possible at limited marginal cost, especially when one takes into account the cost of the extended trial procedures and interminable appeals and reviews which usually accompany capital punishment)-- all these points are important, but their utility is chiefly
as rebuttal arguments in response to the empirically weak but emotionally strong claims made on behalf of capital punishment.
In chapter 3 of his The God Delusion published last September, Richard Dawkins included a
rebuttal of «The argument [for God] from admired religious scientists,» in which he pours scorn on the citing of eminent believing scientists (contemporary or historical)
as evidence for God's existence.
Such
rebuttal material was probably viewed
as potentially fatal for enviro - activists, and from all I've found, it appears they took a practically unknown pilot project PR campaign from the Western Fuels Association and blew it out of all proportion in order to have some kind of plausible - sounding «
evidence» for their claim that skeptic climate scientists were no different than the paid shill experts who claimed cigarette smoking was not especially harmful.
Hansen's Kingsnorth testimony was another instance of what I have observed
as the IPCC approach to the story on AGW, i.e providing the
evidence for one side without
rebuttal from the other.
[12] In any event, the proposed
evidence is also truly responsive
as a
rebuttal to the opinion of another expert witness called by the CN defendants, Dr. Baker, whose report entered at Tab 1 of Exhibit 61 states:
I would restrict, of course,
as courts I think must, the practice of having opinion
evidence without notice strictly to truly responsive
rebuttal evidence, and I think that if that rule is carefully observed, there should be no difficulties.
[52] I thus conclude that what is referred to in Rule 11 - 6 (4) is not akin to
rebuttal evidence such
as that called by a plaintiff in response to a defendant's case, with its consequent limitations.
[53]
As such, it has inherent limitations, but not necessarily the same limitations that Henderson J imposed on the true
rebuttal evidence he was dealing with in C.N. Rail, supra.
There are limits on
rebuttal evidence, however, and one such limit is that the
evidence called in
rebuttal must be truly responsive to the other sides case
as opposed to addressing the points that needed to be proven in the «case in chief `.
The third condition in the order is directed to the third party calling an independent medical examiner «for
rebuttal evidence» I understand from counsel that this refers not to
rebuttal evidence as generally understood, but to
evidence that is purely responsive to medical
evidence which the plaintiff has led
as part of her case.
[50] In C.N. Rail, supra, Henderson J. was dealing with
rebuttal evidence in the classic sense described by Southin J.A. in Sterritt v. McLeod, supra,
as simply
evidence responsive to some point in the oral
evidence of the witness called by the defendant.
The landlord must also provide
rebuttal evidence — defined
as: a signed copy of the tenancy agreement, original receipts for damaged or destroyed items and estimates, invoices or receipts for any repairs and rent account statement.