CRIMINAL EVIDENCE

Introduction

The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal
principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what
evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of
fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a juryThe law of evidence is also
concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation.
The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court,
and they vary by jurisdiction.

The quantum of evidence is the amount of evidence needed; the quality of proof is how reliable
such evidence should be considered. Important rules that govern admissibility concern hearsay,
authentication, relevance, privilege, witnesses, opinions, expert testimony, identification and rules
of physical evidence. There are various standards of evidence or standards showing how strong the
evidence must be to meet the legal burden of proof in a given situation, ranging from reasonable
suspicion to preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a
reasonable doubt.

There are several types of evidence, depending on the form or source. Evidence governs the use of
testimony (e.g., oral or written statements, such as an affidavit), exhibits (e.g., physical objects),
documentary material, or demonstrative evidence, which are admissible (i.e., allowed to be
considered by the trier of fact, such as jury) in a judicial or administrative proceeding (e.g., a court
of law).

When a dispute, whether relating to a civil or criminal matter, reaches the court there will always
be a number of issues which one party will have to prove in order to persuade the court to find in
his or her favour. The law must ensure certain guidelines are set out in order to ensure that
evidence presented to the court can be regarded as trustworthy.

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE
The outcome of many criminal law cases will depend upon the strength and admissibility of
evidence -- including physical proof, scientific evidence, and witness testimony.
The object of a Criminal Court is to do justice, so to say, to convict the guilty and protect the
innocent. The main motto of a criminal trial is to search for the truth. As such, the duty of a
Criminal Court is to arrive at the truth and subserve the ends of justice.The law of criminal
evidence governs how parties, judges, and juries offer and then evaluate the various forms of proof
at trial. In some ways, evidence is an extension of civil and criminal procedure. Generally,
evidence law establishes a group of limitations that courts enforce against attorneys in an attempt
to control the various events that the trial process presents in an adversarial setting.
Rules of Evidence
There are different types of evidence that can be used in a criminal trial, and a variety of rules that
govern evidence. Some common concepts that come up when discussing the rules of evidence are:
Circumstantial Evidence: This isn't what you would call "smoking gun" evidence, but rather some
piece of information that strongly infers a set of circumstances. For instance, video surveillance
showing that the defendant was on the same city block where a crime was committed at around
the same time would be circumstantial evidence.
Corroborating Evidence: Evidence that strengthens another piece of evidence, even if it isn't
directly related to the crime. For example, a witness claims John was at the scene of the crime at a
particular time. If another witness has proof that John failed to show up to work at that same time,
then it could be considered corroborating evidence.

Hearsay: This isn't given under oath or offered as official evidence, but merely stated out of court.
For example, Fred says he heard that John was in a street gang; but without any evidence, Fred's
statement is merely hearsay (and not admissible).
Exclusionary Rule: This rule of evidence applies to that which was obtained in violation of the
defendant's constitutional rights. Seizing property without a warrant often is considered a violation
and thereby subject to the exclusionary rule.Admissible Evidence

In order to be admitted at court evidence must be relevant, material, and competent. To be relevant
evidence must reasonably help prove or disprove some fact. The degree to which this evidence
increases or decreases the likelihood of the fact for which it was introduced will influence the
weight it is given by the judge or jury. Evidence is material if it is offered to prove a fact in dispute
and it is competent if it falls within certain standards of reliability.
Suppressed Evidence

Evidence that might otherwise be admitted in a criminal case can be suppressed when it has been
illegally obtained. Evidence produced as a result of an unlawful search and seizure, the failure to
read Miranda rights, or evidence for which the chain of custody is broken may all be suppressed.
Any evidence produced as the result of these flawed circumstances may also be suppressed as
"fruit of the poisonous tree." Evidence that would normally be suppress-able may still be admitted
where it would have inevitably been discovered, the officer was acting on good faith, or when an
independent source would have produced the same evidence.

Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay describes when a witness repeats a third party statement in court to prove the truth of the
statement itself. For Example: "My neighbor told me he saw her attack the victim." To say that
there are exceptions to the hearsay rule is an understatement. The Federal Rules of Evidence list
24 exceptions, including a "catchall" rule that states that hearsay evidence that doesn't otherwise
fit into the exceptions can still be admitted if it has sound guarantees of trustworthiness, helps
prove a material fact, is more probative than other similar reasonably obtainable evidence, would
forward the cause of justice, and all parties have been notified that it will be offered into evidence.
Learn more about hearsay and the other 23 exceptions to the rule.

Character Evidence

Character evidence is normally not permitted in criminal court to show a person is likely to be
guilty. For example, a person's reputation for exaggeration or lying cannot be introduced as
evidence that the person committed fraud. However, there are some circumstances when character
evidence is permitted. At the sentencing stage character evidence is often introduced, but here it is
not to prove guilt, but rather to argue for leniency or strictness in punishment. Habit rather than
character can be used as evidence when it is specific, regular and consistently repeated. Civil suits
have similar rules, but exceptions exist; especially in defamation suits and others where character
is potentially central to the suit. Learn more about character evidence, admissibility and other
issues.

Scientific and Forensic Evidence

There are many kinds of scientific evidence admitted to criminal courts including fingerprints,
fiber analysis, DNA and other evidence. Any scientific evidence produced at trail must first be
shown to be established within the scientific community and generally accepted as true before it
can be asserted at trial. Fingerprint and DNA matching are reasonably well-understood, but there
are times when less established kinds of scientific evidence are introduced. When necessary a
hearing on the validity of a scientific theory takes place prior to the trial on the merits of the
principal case. Learn more about kinds of forensic evidence and their current reception by courts.