10

The short answer is that propensity evidence can only be circumstantial evidence and that it is generally inadmissible. But we should start by clarifying what "circumstantial evidence" means. It is not the opposite of legal evidence, but more like the opposite of direct evidence. Direct evidence is evidence that independently establishes a fact in ...


8

For convenience, I am listing federal rules of evidence, but Wisconsin would have substantially similar rules. The law makes no real distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. But many rules of evidence regulate propensity evidence and when it can be considered. Propensity evidence is a subset of "character evidence." Propensity ...


6

If Bob acknowledges how he has altered the evidence at the time he submits it, there shouldn't be any issues with it turning into falsification, which generally only becomes a problem when it's done with an intent to mislead the court. More likely, an opposing party would raise an authenticity objection, i.e, that the evidence has been altered and is ...


4

Only a jury can answer your question, and then on a case-by-case basis. When a witness testifies, the question of whether and to what extent to believe/disbelieve a witness is nearly 100% the decision of the jury (or the judge in a bench trial). In a criminal trial, at least, if a thousand disinterested nuns can take the stand and give identical testimony ...


3

A fact cannot by itself constitute reasonable suspicion; the word "reasonable" describes not only the relationship between the fact and the possible existence of a crime, but also the officer's knowledge about the fact. The officer must not only sincerely believe the truth of the facts constituting reasonable suspicion, but must also reasonably ...


2

Partiality may discredit a witness But that, and the extent to which it discounts their evidence is a matter for the jury. From the new-south-wales Criminal Trials Bench Book: [3-625] Motive to lie and the onus of proof Crown witnesses A motive to lie or to be untruthful, if it is established, may “substantially affect the assessment of the credibility of ...


2

The problem with Solution 2 is that government officials in the United States enjoy qualified immunity with respect to actions that they did while acting under color of law. It's not total immunity, but if they do things by the book, they cannot be prosecuted even if something goes wrong (even when doing things by the book, Police deal in very volatile ...


1

They didn’t At least in common-law jurisdictions outside the united-states. In england-and-wales, canada, australia, and others, illegally obtained evidence is admissible. In most jurisdictions this is at the discretion of the judge based on whether the probitive value of the evidence outweighs the public interest in having the police obey the law. In all of ...


1

when a regular (non-expert) witness does not like the defendant (and admits it when asked), does that alone give a valid reason to discredit them to any extent at all? Not alone. It is simply another factor the jury may consider in weighing a witness's credibility. U.S. v. Bonilla-Guizar, 729 F.3d 1179, 1186 (2013). If anything, from a practical standpoint, ...


1

The general problem with a "letter from the grave" is that it violates a defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause. The major decisions interpreting the Confrontation Clause from the years in question are: Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011) (holding that the Confrontation Clause does not prohibit the introduction of hearsay statements ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible