52
Short Answer
SIMPLIFIED AND UPDATED BASED ON ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THE QUESTION:
The marriage is valid, but their marriage will not allow the girlfriend to refuse to testify as a witness in the case.
She can be compelled to testify against him under oath, but does not have to testify about the confidential communications that they have with each ...
50
An indictment is issued by a grand jury when they are convinced, on the basis of evidence presented to them by the government, that there is probable cause to believe that the person committed a crime. However, the indictment only has to state the charges, i.e. the grand jury's conclusion; it doesn't have to describe the evidence that led them to this ...
49
It seems like the officer should have to present at least some kind of evidence that the alleged crime occurred.
Testimony is evidence. Officers can and do abuse this, but courts tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, so they typically attribute greater weight and credibility to a police officer's testimony than to that of a defendant.
31
Whether evidence is admissible in court or not doesn't depend on whether it conforms to any standard, compliance, or certification.
Those factors may affect how strong the evidence is (i.e how convincing it is), but those factors don't determine whether the evidence may be used at all.
Different jurisdictions have different rules, but in most places, as ...
29
Yes, you can ask permission from the court. From this page (by a firm of solicitors):
Recording a conversation in secret is not a criminal offence and is not prohibited. As long as the recording is for personal use you don’t need to obtain consent or let the other person know.
[...]
A private recording can be submitted as evidence, but with some conditions:
...
24
Documents are not evidence - testimony is evidence
Documents don’t just magically become “evidence” - somebody (or more than one somebody) gives evidence about them. That is, they give testimony about what they are, where they come from, how they were created and how they got from there to here - that’s evidence. Those people can be cross-examined to test ...
22
No. Jurors generally do not receive such an instruction and it is not a rule of law or evidence. Jurors have to rule in accordance with the law, but how they judge the credibility of witnesses may be influenced by emotional factors. How the witness says something is as much a part of the evidence as what they say.
17
Beyond Nate Eldredge's excellent answer, I just want to focus on one portion of your question: "to deny commission of a crime is a "lie" apparently if the agent thinks you committed the crime."
The US Attorney's Manual and Criminal Resource Manual has a whole section devoted to false statements and fraud against the government. If you read it, you'll see ...
17
European viewpoint:
"Innocent until proven guilty" relates only to the criminal process.
There is also an "administrative process" where the traffic control pretty much belongs, as well as other matters where the government exerts control, e.g. food quality.
In the administrative process, the inspector's findings are considered true ...
13
Why do other countries, like America, not allow this?
It is the way that U.S. courts have interpreted the constitutional amendment requirement and reflects a policy judgment that letting someone go free now and then is better than frequently forcing someone to be tried more than once. That value judgment flowed from concerns about and fear and skepticism of ...
12
However, if it's his word against mine ...
I don't know the US point of view, but I have read that in Germany the courts evaluate the "evidence" (which includes statements of witnesses) by importance.
If your word is against the word of the police officer, the court will judge the two statements the following way:
The police officer is trained to ...
10
What remedies are therein the United States? I would imagine that the
witness could be prosecuted for perjury. My guess is that the
plaintiff could prosecute the witness for the lost damages. Are there
any other remedies like reopening the original trial or declaring a
mistrial so that the plaintiff could sue the (deep-pocketed)
defendant, or would ...
10
According to https://www.baezlawfirm.com/can-your-spouse-be-forced-to-testify-against-you/ Section 90.504 of Florida’s Evidence Code includes the privilege to exclude "marital communications" from the testimony of a spouse, but does not include the "testimonial privilege" which Federal common law and the laws of many US states do include, that permits one ...
10
A case can be "dismissed" at (most) any time (however, the further along in the process a case is, the less likely a judge will allow a case to be dismissed without very good reason).
A case can be dismissed with or without "prejudice", which in this legal context means essentially "finality". A case dismissed with prejudice ...
9
In theory, a store can ban you or anyone else for any reason except those protected by law against discrimination. As a practical matter, you potentially have various forms of recourse.
The first thing to do is to write the the CEO of the chain, with a long detailed letter describing the incidents, and naming names. Most CEO's don't want to deal with this ...
9
Calls to 911 are treated as genuine at all times until the complaint is dealt with. This is because most people only call 911 for legitimate reasons and even some criminals call 911 because they want them to know the situation (Bomb scares are an extreme version of this as they cause a lot of disruption; they cannot be ignored because if the cops were to ...
9
Whether they are admissible as evidence is up to the trier of law
The “trier of law” (judge) decides what evidence is admissible according to the rules of evidence.
Documents of most kinds are not admissible on their own (exceptions include “business” documents like invoices and receipts). To be admissible, someone (presumably you) has to testify as to ...
8
This is a good question, although it discusses crimes. This answer generalizes the question by giving a response for civil violations.
In the united-states, where federal civil-procedure is followed and provided the tape isn't solely for impeachment purposes (i.e. it also documents other elements), there are certain disclosures required at the beginning of ...
8
Short Answer
Statements of jurors about their deliberations are not allowed to be considered for any purpose, subject to very narrow limitations which do not apply in the fact pattern you are asking about in this question.
The General Rule And Its Exceptions
Consideration of juror statements, subject to narrow exceptions, is barred by Federal Rule of ...
8
No.
The military has a saying “never give an order you know won’t be obeyed”. While the judge can tell the jury to disregard some statement or other, what that really means is that judge is saying that it is not relevant to the case for legal reasons.
But jury discussions are private, and what and why jurors make their decision are outside of the control ...
8
As far as the US is concerned, the provision of the US constitution ends the discussion, unless there is some latent and unresolved unclarity what the 5th Amendment says. Bear in mind that the amendment refers to "jeopardy" and not just "punishment" or "conviction" – even the possibility of conviction. To overcome the US ...
7
Destruction of evidence always has to be weighed against dealing with an active situation. Taking a surviving victim to a hospital and treating them also destroys evidence; so does putting out an arson fire by knocking out walls. In all cases, there's an emergency situation and dealing with it is more important than preserving evidence. Flashbangs aren't ...
7
There are instances when the testimony may still be admitted. For example, a deposition may be admitted at trial either for impeaching or when a witness cannot attend, which involves the circumstance of death (FRCP 32(a)(4)(a)).
Additionally, regarding hearsay, there are numerous exceptions. My Evidence professor said in class "If you cannot find a way to ...
7
First of all, the USA's legal system is not here to be referee to every single little "gotcha" mistake, and every little mistake doesn't mean a payday for someone.
The employee at the tax preparer screwed up. They mixed up your folder with the other guy's folder. It was an honest mistake, which is another way of saying "nobody stands to gain from this."
...
7
In 1935, the Supreme Court held in Mooney v. Holohan that the prosecution lying about evidence betrays the duty of the prosecutor to seek justice. As such, any evidence that could be in the defense's favor must be revealed to the defense (the defense is entitled to see all evidence against the accused that will be used in trial... and need not turn over ...
7
The Evidence Would be Admissible.
Under the so-called "good faith exception" to the exclusionary rule the evidence would probably be admitted over Bob's objections in both cases mentioned in the question. Recent US court decisions have limited the exclusionary rule when police officers reasonably but mistakenly believe that a valid warrant exists, ...
7
united-states
Procedures differ on such things. The closest I know of to an outcome of "not enough evidence" is the classic "scotch verdict" of "Not Proven.
In the US, the prosecutor can wait to proceed with a criminal case while s/he does (or has done) as much investigation as s/he thinks is advisable. But once the trial starts, it normally proceeds to a ...
7
First, as Mark Johnson said.
Second, the job of police and prosecutors is not to put people into jail, their job is to put guilty people into jail.
If you go to the police and tell them that you beat up a person, then before they investigate, they know that either you are guilty of assault, or you mistakenly believe that you are guilty of assault, or you ...
7
Regardless of whether a defendant is a wife or husband in relation to
a potential witness, the latter can always refuse to say jack or just
go with the "I can't recall" thing. What, will they torture them?
What's the point of these "privileges" then?
There are actually two separate spousal privileges, the confidential communications ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
