Law of Criminal Evidence

Law of Criminal Evidence

Introduction

This case study is said to be catering to two whole aspects of the law and those are 'law of evidence' and 'Burden of Proof'. This case is a perfect example of the two aspects of law mentioned. Law of evidence is said to be a crucial part of the criminal procedure. Law of evidence states that an individual is only said to be guilty or be convicted of an offence when there is apt and reliable data available and at the same time, it should not be unduly prejudicial. This law also ensures the fact that the evidence is said to be collected on the basis of the law. If proper rules and regulations are not followed then the court has every right to reject the evidence. The rules, which are said to be associated with the law of evidence, tend to be different based on the type of case as well as the level of the court that the case will be conducted in. If representatives would want to present evidence to the court then they must ensure the fact that it fulfills the set standards since the opposition has every right to contest it. The basis on which the evidence can be termed inadmissible is when the court learns that the evidence has been tampered or there is ambiguity in terms of the chain of custody that the evidence has been to. The case which is related to the law of evidence is Hamdan v. Rumsfeld which is a perfect example of the law of evidence. Other examples of it are Thomas J. Miceli & C.F. Sirmans, Torrens vs. Title Insurance: An Economic Analysis of Land Title Systems. This also highlights how law of evidence aided one party over the other when the case was at a critical point. The third case which is said to be highlighting the importance of law of evidence is Chaplin v. DuPont Advance Fiber Systems.

Burden of Proof is said to entail two aspects that is burden of production as well as burden of persuasion. Burden of production is said to be a state in which there is ample evidence and the advantage of ample evidence is the fact that the facts tend to speak for themselves. Burden of persuasion on the other hand is said to be a state where an entity tries to convince the fact finder to perceive the facts that would end up favoring the party. The burden of proof with respect to civil case is said to be on the plaintiff and in terms of a criminal case it is said to be on the government and it is the responsibility of the government to prove “beyond a reasonable of doubt”. A good example of it is Patterson v New York which actually enlightens about the complications when it comes to complications concerning burden of proof. Other cases which relied on budebn of proof's are John ...