51
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 ...
48
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
15
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 ...
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 ...
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
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 ...
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 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 ...
7
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 ...
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 ...
6
Focusing on evidence is putting the cart before the horse; what is relevant is proof. In the case overall and on any point in particular one party has the burden of proof to the requisite standard; balance of probabilities for a civil case, beyond reasonable doubt for a criminal case.
The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper ...
6
In California, all parties to a conversation (people being recorded) have to agree to a recording. There are no special rules pertaining to husbands and wives. It is sufficient that the parties are aware that the recording is being made and they continue to talk, knowing that fact. There are exceptions, under Cal. Penal 633.5, in that surreptitious ...
6
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 ...
6
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 ...
5
Yes. It will hold up in court.
IMHO, there is no difference in the admissible portions of the two testimonies.
"Few minutes" vs. "One hour" is immaterial
The difference between "a few minutes" and "one hour" IMHO is immaterial given:
the witness was unconscious and
say, between 45 and 60 minutes would match both descriptions of the time interval.
...
5
Texas and California are actually what are called Presumed Speeding states, unlike most others which are Absolute Speeding states. (There is a little known third category called Basic, but this is uncommon). In a presumed speeding state, a speed-limit violation offers someone in your shoes far more flexibility in building your defense than the more common ...
5
Two lawyers in a (administrative) hearing suggested that I would have to "lay a foundation"
in order to introduce an email as evidence. Is this a general rule of evidence?
“Laying the foundation” is a term of art used to explain the process of meeting the requirements for having particular types of evidence admitted. Most courts, administrative bodies, ...
5
I am sympathetic to your problem but there is probably not a legal solution: at least not an easy or cheap one. To help you clarify a whole mish-mash of issues I will address each of your points.
frequently calls false noise complaints on neighbors resulting in police action.
If the person genuinely believes that these complaints are valid, even if ...
5
A text message is just as legally binding as a letter, and the lion's share of the cases have held that a text message from a known sending phone number is equivalent to a signed letter.
One would have to carefully parse the exchange of communications to see if they amounted to a binding offer and acceptance, but the fact that it was in a text message, ...
5
This is a good question, which I am going to answer from a practical perspective, rather than a theoretical one, which would probably justify a law review article (applications of the takings clause to criminal justice fact patterns is actually one of my pet areas of legal scholarship, but a lot of it calls for dramatic changes in established practice and ...
5
Laws criminalizing perjury are not about being mistaken or less believable in your testimony. The crime is, very narrowly, stating something which you do not believe to be true, while under oath. If you make a statement that happens to be untrue but you believe it is true (you are mistaken), that is not perjury. In the US, moreover, you have to assert ...
5
In the U.S., pretty much the only circumstance in which a proceeding like the one you contemplate could occur without the criminal defendant present physically in the courtroom would be one where the criminal defendant was physically present when the trial started (say on the morning of day 1) and then failed to return after a break in the proceedings ...
5
No
That is nothing but fiction. Assuming that this is in the US, the police would (probably, there are some exceptions) have had to deliver the well-known "Miranda" warnings, that the suspect has the right to silence, the right to consult a lawyer, and the right to have a free lawyer if unable to afford one, and that statements may be used against the ...
5
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, and find ...
4
If that which you describe in your comment ( Facebook post as only basis for warrantless search) is, and can be shown, to be the only basis for the search, and there was no evidence of a crime in plain view when they arrived.....then yes, it is likely the search and all evidence acquired from the search would be excludable. As to whether the individual could ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
