Sentences with phrase «rules of evidence where»

Atheists keep trying to apply scientifc rules of evidence where they don't belong — to matters of human affairs — yet are perfectly content to throw away the same rules when it suits their purposes (e.g., evolution).

Not exact matches

While it would be difficult to take a lack of fresh credit strains as evidence of restored health in the banking and lending system, we can't rule out the possibility that the Rube Goldberg machine created by the Fed and the Treasury will be enough to take us through a period of years (or if we follow Japan's example, decades) where we will gradually bury the losses of the banking system, trading a short - lived period of adjustment instead for a long - term period of stagnant credit.

I still hold, however, that it is up to the believer to provide enough evidence to convince people that their god is real where the thousands of other examples have all been ruled myth.

@Free,»... it is up to the believer to provide enough evidence to convince people that their god is real where the thousands of other examples have all been ruled myth.»

«The appropriate forum in which to respond to the Senator is a court of law, where the Attorney General will prove all facts according to the rules of evidence.

In a statement following Tuesday's ruling, federal prosecutors in New York's Southern District said they will seek a second trial «where we will have another opportunity to present overwhelming evidence of Dean Skelos and Adam Skelos's guilt and again give the public the justice it deserves.»

«At least show me evidence of where I broke those rules,» Freier said at the meeting.

Jimmy winds up wearing a wire at times and places where common sense indicates it would be discovered, and is saved only by the Bathroom Rule, which indicates toilets in movies are never used for biological purposes, but only to dispose of wires, guns, evidence, etc..

It was a near future SF story where there was a perfect «mind reading device» developed but the Supreme Court ruled that to use it required strong evidence of criminal activity and it could be used only once per suspect.

Where the FTC missed the target was when they said the new rules did not apply to secured debt because they felt «There is no evidence in the record of deceptive or abusive practices in the promotion of services for the relief of non-mortgage secured debt» but they appear to have missed the recent influx of auto loan modification companies that are springing up.

Where a ruling curtailing the Crown's ability to lead evidence of the details of a prior conviction is made, the ruling should be re-examined if the accused testifies in a manner that has the effect of providing an untrue or distorted picture of the accused's character to the jury.

Armed with a working knowledge of the rules of evidence, you can object to the admissibility of evidence where appropriate and be ready to defend objections from your opponent.

In cross-examining the accused (if he or she testifies), the Crown can cross-examine not only on general reputation, but on specific acts of bad character or misconduct that are similar in nature to the offences charged, in order to neutralize the evidence of good character.204 The trial judge retains the discretion to disallow such cross-examination where it would result in undue prejudice.205 If the accused made a statement to police that has been ruled voluntary, and there is an admission therein which is contrary to the evidence led by the accused in relation to his or her good character, the Crown should consider cross-examining the accused on that prior inconsistent statement.

In the Court's view, the decision to consolidate the claims was within the tribunal's discretion, and this decision was reached after a careful interpretation of the parties» contract.906 In another decision, a United States court held that there was no deviation from the rules of the American Arbitration Association agreed to by the parties where the tribunal had considered a belatedly submitted technical report, adding that «[a] rbitration proceedings are not constrained by formal rules of procedure or evidence.»

(3) In the case where an immediate appeal against a ruling has been lodged, and only when there is prima facie evidence showing that there are circumstances that will cause the revocation of the protection order, an appellate court may order, upon a petition, the suspension of the validity of the protection order until the judgment on the immediate appeal against a ruling has come into effect.

Such relaxation of the application of the rules of evidence also can be seen in jury trials, including where the judge allows prosecution witnesses to testify to otherwise inadmissible hearsay matters after a prosecutor claims s / he will «tie up» the hearsay loose ends with subsequent testimony and evidence.

The 2003 version of Family Proceedings Rules 1991, r 8.1 (3) requires that the judge, as appellate tribunal, «be limited to a review of the decision or order of the district judge», save where the «judge considers that... it would be in the interests of justice to hold a rehearing» — as happened, for example in R v R (Lump Sum Repayments)[2003] EWHC 3197 (Fam), [2004] 1 FLR 928, where Mr Justice Wilson (as he then was) decided that the evidence before the district judge needed to be revisited by him.

There should be a rule that recognizes, in circumstances where the Law Society has had to copy electronic records held by a third party, the Law Society may rely on the copies as best evidence and the onus is on the lawyer to provide a forensic copy of those records if the lawyer wishes to dispute the quality of the evidence.

In particular, note that Civil Procedure Rule 31.4 and Practice Direction 31.2 A require that parties discuss with their opponents and, where possible, agree a strategy for the search and production of key evidence including ESI at an early stage, before the Case Management Conference.

The motion judge correctly ruled that, where there was no evidence that David Pearlman was in control of the vehicle at the time of the accident or that he gave his consent to Thomas» operation of the vehicle, he was entitled to summary judgment with respect to the negligence claim against him.

In addition, there are the Rules of Evidence, particularly in Federal Courts where, in general, they are more stringently applied than in most state courts.

As a general rule it is unlikely that the trial will be fair if a very substantial degree of anonymising of evidence is permitted where the testimony of the witnesses concerned constitutes the sole or decisive evidence implicating the defendant (Lord Carswell at 59).

Instead «necessity» becomes equivalent to what is likely to assist «efficient determination» of a case: «[47] The advantage of... this rule is that it avoids an over-rigid interpretation of necessity, where a skilled witness is put forward to present relevant factual evidence in an efficient manner rather than to give an opinion explaining the factual evidence of others.

As a general rule it was unlikely that the trial would be fair if a very substantial degree of anonymising of evidence was permitted where the testimony of the witnesses concerned constituted the sole or decisive evidence implicating the defendant.

«The law lords did not rule out the possibility that evidence could be given anonymously in all circumstances, but they did rule it out where the case depends solely or to a decisive extent upon the statements and testimony of anonymous witnesses.

It could not have been the intention of the rule makers that a party should be entitled to pre-action disclosure where there was no prospect of being able to establish a viable claim, but this was a matter for the court to assess on the evidence presented by the claimant in making the pre-action disclosure application.

On the one hand, it allows judges freedom from many of the oft - restrictive rules of evidence that govern the trial itself, giving them the flexibility to take into account aspects of the individual accused's circumstances and history, often in favor of leniency within the very broad statutory ranges where the facts urge it.

«I conclude that a witness with special skill, knowledge, training, or experience who has not been engaged by or on behalf of a party to the litigation may give opinion evidence for the truth of its contents without complying with rule 53.03 where: the opinion to be given is based on the witness's observation of or participation in the events at issue; and the witness formed the opinion to be given as part of the ordinary exercise of his or her skill, knowledge, training and experience while observing or participating in such events,» wrote Justice Janet Simmons on behalf of the court.

(correct test for Barrister appeals; whether outside the ex improviso rule, prosecutor may call evidence after prosecution and defence case closed; use of debarring orders against prosecutor; whether tribunal may «enter the arena» and strongly request the attendance of a prosecution witness; whether BSB has power to summons witnesses; whether prosecutor may communicate with disciplinary judge behind the back of the defence; whether such communication redolent of actual bias of judge where judge wishes prosecutor good luck on appeal; whether apparent bias doctrine can be engaged by post-trial conduct of judge; legal effect of serving BSB prosecutions department officer being 1 of 4 appointing members of the COIC «Tribunals Appointments Body» (TAB); whether TAB ultra vires the Bar's Constitutions; whether open - ended power of removal of member of COIC pool without cause, unlawful given position of BSB Chair and senior staff on COIC; whether ECHR Article 6 guarantees against pressure on disciplinary judges to conform with a prosecutorial mentality; whether disciplinary judges Art. 6 «independent» within Findlay v United Kingdom given key role of BSB prosecutions department in appointing disciplinary judges; serious non-disclosure by BSB of notes of secret meeting between BSB and disciplinary judge until day before appeal and despite requests and application for disclosure by defence)

On December 14, 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal released the per curiam ruling in R v Girou, 2017 ABCA 426 involving a rare case where the Crown and the defendant agreed that lost evidence breached the defendant's fair trial interests under s. 7 of the Charter of Rights.

On December 14, 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal released the per curiam ruling in R v Girou, 2017 ABCA 426 involving a rare case where the Crown and the defendant agreed that lost evidence breached the defendant's fair trial interests...

Rule 30.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires that if surveillance is to be used as substantive evidence at trial, then counsel must give the opposite party notice of its intention to use the evidence, and the evidence itself must be produced to the opposite party at least 90 days before the commencement of trial.7 If counsel fails to do so, the Court will limit the use of that evidence to impeachment purposes only, except where a trial judge grants leave to use the evidence for substantive purposes.

Where criminal proceedings follow civil proceedings, ordinarily findings of a civil court on the matters in issue in the criminal case will not be admissible in those subsequent criminal proceedings, although in some circumstances civil judgments may be admissible pursuant to the rules concerning evidence of bad character.

The opposite occurred in the McCallum trial where a number of witnesses were permitted to give opinion evidence without complying with Rule 53.03.

Particularly in chambers applications, where no judge has time to absorb all the parties» digital polemics for an interim order, some further rules of court or evidence should be established to arrest the page count of affidavits on chambers applications.

HELD Mr Justice Nelson ruled (at paras 35 and 36) that the police officer juror should have been asked to stand down at the outset, as should normally occur where any potential juror knows witnesses who are to be called to give oral evidence, unless it can be said with certainty that the evidence of the witnesses who are known will play no contested part in the determination of the matter.

It was to be observed that (i) there was no express provision within the Disqualification Rules dealing with expert evidence; (ii) where a question of expert evidence did arise, the CPR provisions dealing with expert evidence would apply; (iii) it was within the scheme of the Disqualification Rules for a question or questions requiring expert evidence to be identified at the first hearing of the application and for the court at that stage to give directions for the filing and service of such evidence; and (iv) it followed that expert evidence ultimately used by a claimant in support of the application or that a defendant ultimately wished the court to take into consideration might not have been filed and served by the first hearing of the application.

Despite its broad deterrent purpose, the exclusionary rule has never been interpreted to proscribe the use of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons... the application of the rule has been restricted to those areas where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served.

The rule prohibits both direct and indirect use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal prosecution, but will only be applied where its deterrence benefits outweigh its substantial social costs.

There is a lot of evidence suggesting that Janice Payne (Duffy's lawyer) Senator Irving Gerstein and Nigel Wright (perhaps along with other members of the PMO) reached an agreement where «the Conservative Party would repay $ 32,000 worth of Sen. Duffy's housing allowance, plus $ 12,000 in legal fees» and Duffy would «publicly acknowledge he might have made mistakes and misinterpreted unclear Senate rules and repay the money».

Further, the suggestion that the employer should bear the burden of persuasion due to superior access to evidence has little force in the Title VII context, where the liberal discovery rules available to all litigants are supplemented by EEOC investigatory files.

If it's not in the rules of evidence, where does this «asked and answered» objection come from?

Unlike a courtroom, where the judge is bound by rules of evidence and the specifics of the law, parties in mediation can raise any issues they choose.

I'm going to follow the old rule of «write what you know» for a moment, and follow this train of thought for medical degrees, just because that's the one I've got, and that's where most of the evidence is, as far as I can tell.

Even where partial or early evidence has been taken by the Court, the Bill will allow the Court to admit evidence under the new evidence rules where either both the parties agree or the Court considers it in the interests of justice that the new rules apply.

HREOC supports the amendment of section 79 (2) of the Evidence Act which provides an exception to the opinion rule where expert evidence relating to child behaviour and development is pEvidence Act which provides an exception to the opinion rule where expert evidence relating to child behaviour and development is pevidence relating to child behaviour and development is provided.

Adolescent interviews assessed all disorders, while briefer parent questionnaires assessed only disorders for which parent reports have previously been shown to play a large part in diagnosis: behavior disorders15 and depression or dysthymia.16 Parent and adolescent reports were combined at the symptom level using an «or» rule (except in the case of attention - deficit / hyperactivity disorder where only parent reports were used based on evidence of low validity of adolescent reports).

The lawyers employ the adversarial process, where each side in a dispute has the right to present its case as persuasively as possible, subject to the rules of evidence, and a judge decides the outcome.