Expert testimony is
inadmissible unless a competent expert testifies «to a reasonable degree of medical certainty» that a given event caused the plaintiff's injuries.
But in In re Vee Vinhnee, a central California federal bankruptcy court ruled in 2005 that electronic evidence was
inadmissible unless «the record being proffered must be shown to continue to be an accurate representation of the record that originally was created,» a higher standard than most courts hold.
Not exact matches
Sections 13 of the Charter and 5 (2) of the CEA are treated as offering the same protection and both provide that prior compelled evidence is
inadmissible against an accused, including to challenge credibility,
unless the prosecution is for perjury or if the accused is giving contradictory evidence.
(re-trial at which RICS» main witnesses failed to appear to be cross-examined; successful application by Marc Beaumont that
unless they appear on the next occasion, their evidence shall be
inadmissible; charges later withdrawn by RICS).
As important is the fact that all evidence gathered by the use of a mechanical or electronic speed measuring device is
inadmissible —
unless the officer first does something known as «laying a predicate».