Meaning of Legal Word Evidence
Despite the uncertainty, journalists have successfully invoked privileges since Branzburg. In some jurisdictions, they have been supported by protective laws, which are laws that allow journalists to withhold certain information. Even in state jurisdictions without protective laws, many courts have upheld a journalist`s claim of privilege with a three-part test defended in Branzburg dissent: a journalist can only be compelled to disclose confidence if the government proves (1) that there are probable grounds to believe that the journalist has information that is clearly relevant to a particular violation. (2) that the same information is not available by other means less prejudicial to the First Amendment, and (3) that there is a compelling and overriding interest in the information. Still other courts have interpreted Branzburg as prohibiting state courts from creating journalistic privileges (Caldero v. Tribune Publishing Co., 98 Idaho 288, 562 P.2d 791 [1977]; In re Roche, 381 Mass. 624, 411 N.E.2d 466 [1980]). Since Gloria`s announcement in December, Voice of San Diego has only been able to find five new posts. There is a second prong to Wigmore`s assertion that relevance is a legal concept.
Relevance is legal in the sense that the judge is bound by cases already decided (“precedents”) when deciding on the relevance of proposed evidence. Note: A court may use external evidence to understand an ambiguity in scripture that is subject to certain restrictions. Other admissibility rules are also considered to focus on forms of argument rather than types of facts. In the United States, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)(1) prohibits the use of evidence of a person`s personality “to prove that the person acted in accordance with his or her character on a particular occasion,” and Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(1) provides that evidence of a crime or a false soil test at Waun Mawn in 2011 found no evidence of a circle of stones. Given that the relevant utility depends on individual circumstances, such as the seriousness of the offence and the severity of the sentence, the adjudicative theoretical presentation of the standard of proof in both the simple and amended versions seems to lead to the conclusion that the probabilistic threshold should vary from case to case (Lillquist, 2002; Bartels, 1981; Laudan and Saunders, 2009; Ribeiro, 2019). In other words, the standard of proof should be flexible or floating. This view is seen as problematic. Personal Evidence 1: Best Evidence in This Entry 2: Evidence Obtained as a Direct Result of an Illegal Search Wigmore takes a different view. He counters to Thayer that relevance is a legal concept. Its claim is twofold. The first is that the legal relevance of the evidence requires “a degree of probative value generally higher than that which would be required in ordinary reasoning”: Prima facie evidence: evidence sufficient to prove a disputed fact and justify a positive judgment on that issue, unless it is disproved. Proponents of the mathematical conception of the standard of proof have asserted themselves even though they recognize that weight plays a role in Bayesian analysis of the weight of evidence and sufficiency.
If a party does not present relevant evidence in its possession, resulting in a lack of evidence in the court, it may draw an adverse inference against it when calculating probability after the fact (Kaye, 1986b: 667; Friedman, 1997). One criticism of this approach is that, in the absence of information on lack of evidence, the adverse conclusion is open to the objection of arbitrariness (Nance 2008:274). Another objection is that the management of the parties` conduct with respect to the preservation and presentation of evidence should be left to the judges and not to the jury. What a judge can do to maximize the weight of evidence is to impose a burden of proof on a party and bring the party to an adverse finding of fact if they do not present the evidence. This encourages the party to act in a manner that promotes the value of completeness of evidence (Nance 2008, 2010, 2016). One of the main purposes of using the adjective “logical” is to indicate the non-legal nature of relevance. As Thayer (1898:269) has argued, relevance is “a matter of logic, not law.” This is not to say that relevance does not have a legal dimension. The law distinguishes between questions of law and questions of fact. A relevant question raises a question of law that is for the judge, not the jury, to decide, and to the extent that relevance is defined in sources of law (e.g., Federal Rule of Evidence 401 mentioned above), the judge must respect the legal definition. But the legal definitions of relevance are, without exception, very broad. Relevance is a logical, not a legal, concept in the sense that, in order to answer a question of relevance and apply the definition of relevance, the judge must necessarily rely on extrajudicial means and is not bound by precedent.
Returning to Federal Rule of Evidence 401, it generally states that evidence is relevant when it “tends to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” .