Sentences with phrase «understand rules of evidence»

Few psychologists understand rules of evidence used in family law courts or are trained in how to work with cases as difficult as these.

Not exact matches

Chad, please get busy with the empirical evidence of any god's existence which is supported by a 2/3 majority of physicists (the dudes who best understand the rules governing our reality).

It is best understood when scholars apply to it the same rules of analysis, evidence and logic used in philosophy, history and literature.

@Stuart White: The Cabinet Office rule - book (draft of chapter 6, approved by the House of Commons Select Committee on Justice and drawn up in consultation, I understand, with the party leaders and with constitutional experts) lays it down that after an election the incumbent prime minister has a duty, as well as a right, to remain in office until there's clear and incontrovertible evidence that someone else is definitely in a position to command majority support in the house of commons.

It's evidence of some unwritten rule governing the division of artistic labor that Andrew Forge's work as a teacher and critic would color our understanding of his paintings, and not the other way around.

Then there's the problem of quantifying the variability of natural processes we know we don't understand because the estimates of various factors keep changing every year... you have to rule these things out to make sensible emissions policy, you can't just wave your hands and say «there's no evidence we're wrong so go ahead and spend trillions of dollars based on this speculation over here.»

Scientific skepticism does not rule out the possibility of global warming; rather it seeks evidence before drawing up disastrous «solutions» to an ill - understood phenomenon.

The evidentiary rulings as to relevance can only be based upon the trial judge's understanding at that time of what the evidence is expected to show, and here the judge made a proper ruling.

A federal magistrate judge, for example, doesn't need three cases to understand that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (b) permits a party to discover «any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense» or information that «appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.»

Second, in view of the finding on the liability phase that the Respondent deliberately touched the four complainants in a way that an objective observer would find to be sexual and in accepting the complainants» evidence that the touching was, to them, «blatantly sexual» there is no line of analysis that could reasonably lead the tribunal to conclude that the Respondent's awkward, unskilled and non-empathic manner was a factor in understanding his abusive behaviour or that it could reasonably infer that he was genuinely and completely unaware of the ways in which his behaviour in relation to his patients was in fact abusive,» said the ruling.

The research produced by Macfarlane and the Research Institute shows that litigants have enormous difficulty understanding and navigating the rules of court, the rules of evidence, court processes and the legislation applicable to their cases, and that, unsurprisingly, they find the justice system to be impossibly intimidating, incomprehensible and inaccessible.

A judge can not act as anyone's lawyer, but will do his or her best to ensure that an unrepresented individual is made aware of the rules of court, understands how to adduce evidence, and appreciates the possible consequences of decisions made in the course of the proceeding.

We are intimately familiar with the rules of evidence, both statutory and uncodified, and understand the rationale for the counterintuitive principle expressed in Browne v Dunn.

The court referred to a rule in the US Federal Rules of Evidence that asserted that if expert evidence «will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue» it should be aEvidence that asserted that if expert evidence «will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue» it should be aevidence «will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue» it should be aevidence or to determine a fact in issue» it should be admitted.

This means assisting a client to understand court rules and procedures, including the identification of appropriate court forms, their accurate completion, filing and service procedures, the submission of evidence in advance of a hearing, and next steps at any stage in a particular legal process (eg interim proceeding, full hearing, appeal etc).

In the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling reported as R v Wagar, 2015 ABCA 327 Justice Brian K. O'Ferrall, speaking for a unanimous court, made short shrift of Justice Camp's judgment, at p. 1: ``... [W] e are satisfied that the trial judge's comments throughout the proceedings and in his reasons gave rise to doubts about the trial judge's understanding of the law governing sexual assaults and in particular, the meaning of consent and restrictions on evidence of the complainant's sexual activity... We are also persuaded that sexual stereotypes and stereotypical myths, which have long since been discredited, may have found their way into the trial judge's judgment.»

Expert witnesses must be able to demonstrate a genuine understanding of the procedural requirements for giving expert evidence and, for example, they must be able to meet deadlines and produce written reports that comply with requirements set out in the Civil Procedure Rules.

The rules of evidence and civil procedure are complicated, and must also be understood in light of appellate cases that have been decided by appellate courts over the years.

This does not offend the parol evidence rule because the goal of considering the factual matrix is (at para 81) «to deepen the trial judge's understanding of the mutual and objective intentions of the parties as expressed in the words of the contract.»

Speed: The absence of the application of strict rules of evidence and precedent permits an ombudsman's office quick access to decision makers and a focused and fast understanding of the issue in dispute and the pragmatic means for resolving it.

The former was used to suggest that evidence rules should be understood as an evolution, while the latter illuminated the widespread phenomenon of a lack of access to justice, and how rules of evidence might impede access to justice.

Response: While we understand that removing the specified identifiers may reduce the usefulness of the resulting data to third parties, we remain convinced by the evidence found in the MIT study that we referred to in the preamble to the proposed rule [17] and the analyses discussed below that there remains a significant risk of identification of the subjects of health information from the inclusion of indirect identifiers such as birth date and zip code and that in many cases there will be a reasonable basis to believe that such information remains identifiable.

Evidence suggests that such a practice increases the child's understanding of rules and regulations, eventually making it possible for the child to monitor his or her behavior in the absence of the parent.

Although there is currently no universally - accepted definition of the term «evidence - based», the general understanding of this concept involves support of the safety and efficacy of an intervention by empirical research following specific rules of data collection, analysis, and reporting.