{"id":13632,"date":"2018-02-11T02:37:31","date_gmt":"2018-02-11T02:37:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=13632"},"modified":"2023-04-16T22:36:32","modified_gmt":"2023-04-16T22:36:32","slug":"evidence-testimony-documents-tangible-objects-which-prove-or-disprove-the-existence-of-an-alleged-fact","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=13632","title":{"rendered":"Evidence &#8211; testimony, documents, and tangible objects which prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This page is continued from <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=13488\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Court Proceedings<\/a> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=13495\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Terms used in Civil <em>and <\/em>Criminal Proceedings<\/a>:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">***********************<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"font-size: 18pt;\"><span style=\"color: #ff00ff;\">evidence<\/span>:<\/span><\/strong><br \/>\n<em>n<\/em>. (14c)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>1. Something (including testimony, documents, and tangible objects) that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact; anything presented to the senses and offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact<\/strong> &lt;the bloody glove is the key piece of evidence for the prosecution&gt;<strong>. <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>2.<\/strong> <strong>A fact that a tribunal considers in reaching a conclusion; a fact that has been admitted into evidence in a trial or hearing. <\/strong>\u2014 aka<strong><em><span style=\"color: #800000;\"> fact in evidence<\/span><\/em><\/strong>.<br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>3. The collective mass of things, especially testimony and exhibits, presented before a tribunal in a given dispute<\/strong> &lt;the evidence will show that the defendant breached the contract&gt;<strong>. <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>4. The body of law regulating the admissibility of what is offered as proof into the record of a legal proceeding<\/strong> &lt;under the rules of evidence, the witness\u2019s statement is inadmissible hearsay that is not subject to any exception&gt;<strong>.<\/strong> \u2014 aka (in sense 4) <span style=\"color: #800000;\"><em><strong>rules of <\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><em><strong>evidence<\/strong><\/em><\/span>; <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">law of evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>. \u2014 <span style=\"color: #800000;\"><em><strong>evidence<\/strong><\/em><\/span>, <em>vb<\/em>. [1]<br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">1. The means by which any matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, may be established or disproved.\u00a0 That which demonstrates, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the very fact or point in issue, either on the one side or the other. <span style=\"color: #800000;\"><em>Lynch v Rosenberger<\/em>, 121 Kan 601, 249 P 682, 60 ALR 376<\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>The law of evidence embraces those rules which determine what testimony is to be admitted or rejected in the trial of a civil action or a criminal prosecution and what weight is to be given to evidence which is admitted. <span style=\"color: #800000;\">29 Am J2d Ev \u00a7 1<\/span>.<\/strong> [2]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">1. The means by which any matter of fact may be established or disproved.\u00a0 Such means include testimony, documents, and physical objects.\u00a0 The law of evidence is made up of rules that determining what evidence is to be admitted or rejected in the trial of a civil action or a criminal prosecution and what weight is to be given to admitted evidence.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><span style=\"color: #ff00ff;\"><strong><em>verb<\/em><\/strong><\/span>: <strong>To demonstrate; to establish; to reveal; to show; to indicate; to prove.<\/strong> [3]<br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">\u00a0\u00a0<strong>\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from James B. Thayer&#8217;s <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/jstor-1321688\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Presumptions and the Law of Evidence<\/em><\/a> (1889):<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">Evidence is any matter of fact which is furnished to a legal tribunal, otherwise than by reasoning or a reference to what is noticed without proof, as the basis of inference in ascertaining some other matter of fact.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong> [4]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">\u00a0\u00a0<strong>\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from Charles Frederic Chamberlayne&#8217;s <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/cu31924020154310\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Treatise on the Modern Law of Evidence<\/em><\/a> (1911):<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">The \u2018rules of evidence\u2019 are such precepts in the general subject of judicial administration as determine the manner in which a designated fact submitted to judicial decision may be proved; whether such a fact may be proved at all; if so, who are competent to prove it and under what conditions. in the aggregate, these rules constitute the \u2018law of evidence!<\/span>\u201d<\/strong> [5]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">\u00a0\u00a0<strong>\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from Corpus Juris Secundum, <em>Evidence<\/em> (1996):<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">Evidence, broadly defined, is the means from which an inference may logically be drawn as to the existence of a fact; that which makes evident or plain.\u00a0 Evidence is the demonstration of a fact; it signifies that which <\/span><\/span><\/strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">demonstrates, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the very fact or point in issue, either on the one side or on the other.\u00a0 In legal acceptation, the term \u2018evidence\u2019 includes all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved.\u00a0 \u2018Evidence\u2019 has also been defined to mean any species of proof legally presented at the trial of an issue, by the act of the parties and through the medium of witnesses, records, documents, concrete objects, and the like.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong> [6]<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #993300; font-size: 18pt;\">Related Terms:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=13679\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-size: 18pt;\">exhibit<\/span><\/a> &#8211; a document, record, or other tangible object formally introduced as evidence in court.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=13671\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-size: 18pt;\">fact<\/span><\/a> &#8211; a deed; an act; that which exists and is real and true \u2014 which <em>actually<\/em> took place \u2014 not that which <em>might<\/em> not have occurred.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=13666\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-size: 18pt;\">proof<\/span><\/a> &#8211; the effect of evidence; the establishment of a fact by evidence.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=13655\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-size: 18pt;\">burden of proof<\/span><\/a> &#8211; party\u2019s duty to prove a disputed assertion or charge.<\/span><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong><span style=\"font-size: 18pt; color: #993300;\">Various Terms pertaining to Evidence:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">adminicular evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1911) <em>Rare<\/em>.<strong> Corroborating or auxiliary evidence presented for the purpose of explaining or completing other evidence.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">admissible evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>Evidence that is relevant and is of such a character (e. g., not unfairly prejudicial, based on hearsay, or privileged) that the court should receive <\/strong><\/span><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>it.<\/strong> \u2014 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">competent evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>; <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">proper evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>; <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">legal evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">background evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1939) <strong>Evidence that, being both relevant and explanatory of noncontroversial events &#8211;while not being unfairly prejudicial \u2014 is admitted to explain a sequence of events so as to minimize speculation by a fact-finder.\u00a0 *\u00a0 Background evidence is often <\/strong><\/span><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">said to \u201ccomplete the narrative.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">best evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <strong>Evidence of the highest quality available, as measured by the nature of the case rather than the thing being offered as evidence.\u00a0 *\u00a0 The term is <\/strong><\/span><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">usually applied to writings and recordings.\u00a0 If the original is available, it must be offered rather than a copy or oral <\/span><\/strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>rendition. <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=4706\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Fed. R. Evid. 1002<\/a>. <\/strong>\u2014 aka<em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\"> primary evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>; <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">original evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 See BEST-EVIDENCE RULE.\u00a0 <\/span><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">Cf. secondary evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from 32A C.J.S. <em>Evidence<\/em> 5 1054, at 417 (1996):<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">In some circumstances, \u2018best evidence\u2019 may mean that evidence which is more specific and definite as opposed to that which is merely general and indefinite or descriptive. However, \u2018best evidence\u2019 or \u2018primary evidence\u2019 is variously defined as that particular means of proof which is indicated by the nature of the fact under investigation as the most natural and satisfactory, or as that kind of proof which under any possible circumstances affords the greatest certainty of the fact in question; or as evidence which carries on its face no indication that better remains behind.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong> [7]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">character evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1949) <strong>Evidence regarding someone\u2019s general personality traits or propensities, of a praiseworthy or blameworthy nature; evidence of a person\u2019s moral standing in a community.<a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=4519\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"> Fed. R. Evid. 404<\/a>, 405, 608.\u00a0 *\u00a0 Character evidence is usually, but not always, prohibited if offered to show that the person <\/strong><\/span><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>acted in conformity with that character.\u00a0<\/strong> Cf. reputation evidence.<br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">circumstantial evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>1. Evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation.<\/strong> \u2014 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">indirect evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>; <span style=\"color: #800000;\"><em><strong>oblique evidence<\/strong><\/em><\/span>.\u00a0 Cf. direct evidence (I).\u00a0<strong> 2. All evidence that is not given by eyewitness testimony.<\/strong><br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from Alexander M. Burrill, <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/cu31924020622894\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Treatise on the Nature, Principles and Rules of Circumstantial Evidence<\/em><\/a> 4 (1868):<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">Indirect evidence (called by the civilians, oblique, and more commonly known as circumstantial evidence) is that which is applied to the principal fact, indirectly, or through the medium of other facts, by establishing certain circumstances or minor facts, already described as evidentiary, from which the principal fact is extracted and gathered by a process of special inference . . . .<\/span>\u201d<\/strong> [8]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from Henry David Thoreau&#8217;s Journal, 11 Nov. 1850, in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Journal-Henry-D-Thoreau-Vol\/dp\/0486203131\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Journal of Henry D. Thoreau<\/em><\/a> (Bradford Torrey &amp; Francis H. Allen eds., 1962):<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk<\/span>.\u201d<\/strong> [9]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from William P. Richardson&#8217;s <em>The Law of Evidence <\/em>(3d ed. 1928):<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 &#8220;<span style=\"color: #800000;\">Evidence of some collateral fact, from which the existence or non-existence of some fact in question may be inferred as a probable consequence, is termed circumstantial evidence.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong> [10]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from John H. Wigmore&#8217;s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblio.com\/book\/students-textbook-law-evidence-wigmorejohn-h\/d\/992060326?aid=frg&amp;utm_source=google&amp;utm_medium=product&amp;utm_campaign=feed-details&amp;gclid=CjwKCAiA8P_TBRA9EiwAJrpHM7D50OdlsWOK8mdaq42EPiPZr_vlGwOh-mLBGtNftv9Htf8C9BFHRBoCoQwQAvD_BwE\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Students\u2019 Textbook of the Law of Evidence<\/em><\/a> (1935):<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">Testimonial evidence readily defines itself by its name; it is any assertion by a human being, offered to evidence the truth of the matter asserted.\u00a0 Circumstantial evidence is any and all other evidence.\u00a0 Scientifically the term \u2018circumstamtial\u2019 is indefensible, for it does not correlate with \u2018testimonial\u2019; a more correct equivalent would be \u2018nontestimonial.\u2019\u00a0 But no one has yet invented an acceptable substitute for \u2018circumstantial.\u201d<\/span>\u2019<\/strong> [11]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">classified evidence<\/span> &#8211; Secret or confidential information that a party seeks to discover or present as evidence.<\/strong><br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">classified information<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1950) <strong>Data or material that, having been designated as secret or confidential, only a limited number of authorized persons may know about.<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">clear and convincing evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <strong>Evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain.\u00a0 *\u00a0 This is a greater burden than preponderance of the evidence, the standard applied in most civil trials, but less than evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the norm for criminal trials.<\/strong> \u2014 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">clear and convincing proof<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 See REASONABLE DOUBT.\u00a0 Cf. PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=14285\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-size: 18pt;\">preponderance of evidence<\/span><\/a> &#8211; in civil cases, the party whose evidence is more convincing has a &#8220;preponderance of the evidence&#8221; on its side and must, as a matter of law, prevail in the lawsuit because it has met its burden of proof.<\/strong><br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<div class=\"text_exposed_show\">\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">competent evidence<\/span> &#8211; 1.<\/strong> See <em>admissible evidence<\/em>.\u00a0 <strong>2.<\/strong> See <em>relevant evidence<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">computer-generated evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1972) <strong>Evidence created by using a computer to provide a recreation, simulation, or reconstruction of an event (usually a crime scene or accident), esp. as it may be used as substantive evidence or as demonstrative evidence.\u00a0 *\u00a0 To be introduced as substantive evidence, it must be relevant, sufficiently reliable, and probative to a degree that outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice.\u00a0 As demonstrative evidence, it need only be helpful to understanding a witness\u2019s testimony and not be based on erroneous or misleading information.<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 See ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION; CRIME SCENE RE-CREATION. \u2014 Abbr. <span style=\"color: #800000;\"><em><strong>CGE<\/strong><\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">conclusive evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <strong>1. Evidence so strong as to overbear any other evidence to the contrary. <\/strong>\u2014aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">conclusive proof<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 <strong>2. Evidence that so preponderates as to oblige a fact-finder to come to a certain conclusion.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">concomitant evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <strong>Circumstantial evidence that, at the time of the act, the alleged doer of the act was present and actually did it.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">conflicting evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1803) <strong>Evidence that comes from different sources and is often irreconcilable.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">corroborating evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <strong>Evidence that differs from but strengthens or confirms what other evidence shows (especially that which needs support).<\/strong> \u2014 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">corroborative evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 Cf. cumulative evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">credible evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <strong>Evidence that is worthy of belief; trustworthy evidence.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">critical evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c)<strong> Evidence strong enough that its presence could tilt a juror\u2019s mind.\u00a0 *\u00a0 Under the Due Process Clause, an indigent criminal defendant is usually e<\/strong><\/span><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>entitled to an expert opinion of the merits of critical evidence.<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">crucial evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">cumulative evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>Additional evidence that supports a fact established by the existing evidence (that which does not need further support).<\/strong>\u00a0 Cf. corroborating evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">demeanor evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1909) <strong>The behavior and appearance of a witness on the witness stand, to be considered by the fact-finder on the issue of credibility.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">demonstrative evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c)<strong> Physical evidence that one can see and inspect (i.e. an explanatory aid, such as a chart, map, and some computer simulations) and that, while of probative value and usually offered to clarify testimony, does not play a direct part in the incident in question.\u00a0 *\u00a0 This term sometimes overlaps with and is used as a synonym of real evidence.<\/strong> \u2014 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">illustrative evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>; <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">autoptic evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>; <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">autoptic proference<\/span><\/strong><\/em>; <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">real evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>; <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">tangible evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 See <em>nonverbal testimony<\/em> under TESTIMONY.\u00a0 Cf. <em>real evidence<\/em>; <em>testimonial evidence<\/em>. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">\u00a0\u00a0<strong>\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from John H. Wigmore&#8217;s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/students-textbook-law-evidence-University\/dp\/B00085SIHO\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Students&#8217; Textbook of the Law of Evidence<\/em><\/a> (1935):<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">There remains a source of proof, distinct from either circumstantial or testimonial evidence, viz., what the tribunal sees or hears by its own senses.\u00a0 Whether this should be termed \u2018evidence\u2019 or not is a question of words, open to difference of view.\u00a0 But it is universally conceded to be an available source of proof.\u00a0 Bentham\u2019s term for it, \u2018real evidence,\u2019 came into wide vogue, but is ambiguous.\u00a0 The term \u2018autoptic proference\u2019 (etymologically meaning \u2018showing to the tribunal\u2019s own vision\u2019) is preferable.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong> [12]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\"><strong>derivative evidence<\/strong><\/span> &#8211; (1961) <strong>Evidence that is later discovered by using evidence that was illegal] obtained.\u00a0 * The evidence is inadmissible because of t e primary taint unless it would inevitably have been discovered anyway.<\/strong> See EXCLUSIONARY RULE; FRUIT-OF-THE-POISONOUS-TREE DOCTRINE. Cf. primary evidence (2).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">direct evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (16c) <strong>1. Evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.<\/strong> \u2014 aka <span style=\"color: #800000;\">positive evidence<\/span>.\u00a0 Cf. circumstantial evidence; <\/span><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">negative evidence.\u00a0 <strong>2.<\/strong> See <em>original evidence<\/em> (1).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">\u00a0\u00a0<strong>\u00a0 Excerpt from Charles Frederic Chamberlayne&#8217;s <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/cu31924020154310\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Treatise on the Modern Law of Evidence<\/em><\/a> (1911):<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">As commonly used, direct evidence is the immediate perception of the tribunal or the statement of a witness as to the existence of a constituent fact.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong> [13]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from John H. Wigmore&#8217;s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/students-textbook-law-evidence-University\/dp\/B00085SIHO\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Students\u2019 Textbook of the Law of Evidence <\/em><\/a>(1935):<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">A little reflection shows that no disputed case will ordinarily be proved solely by circumstantial or solely by testimonial evidence.\u00a0 Ordinarily there is evidence of both kinds.\u00a0 The matter has been obscured by the use of the term \u2018direct evidence,\u2019 \u2014 a term sometimes used to mean testimonial evidence in general, but sometimes also limited to apply only to testimony directly asserting the fact-in-issue. . . . The term \u2018direct\u2019 evidence has no utility.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong> [14]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">documentary evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>Evidence supplied by a writing or other document, which must be authenticated before the evidence is admissible.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">downright evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> Rare.<strong> A preponderance of evidence.<\/strong><br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">epidemiological evidence<\/span> &#8211; Evidence based on studies <\/span><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">of how a disease is caused, spread, and controlled in a population.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidence-in-chief<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>The collective evidence presented during a litigant\u2019s presentation of its case or defense.\u00a0<\/strong> See CASE-IN-CHIEF.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">exclusive evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>The only facts that have, or are allowed by law to have, any probative force at all on a particular matter in issue.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from\u00a0John Salmond&#8217;s <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/jurisprudence00salm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Jurisprudence<\/em><\/a> (Glanville L. Williams ed., 10th ed. 1947):<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">[T]here is an important class of rules declaring certain facts to be exclusive evidence, none other being admissible.\u00a0 The execution of a document which requires attestation can be proved in no other way than by the testimony of an attesting witness, unless owing to the death or some other circumstance his testimony is unavailable.\u00a0 A written contract can generally be proved in no other way than by the production of the writing itself, whenever its production is possible.<\/span>&#8220;<\/strong> [15]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">exculpatory evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> ( 18c) <strong>Evidence tending to establish a criminal defendant\u2019s innocence. <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=4799\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Fed. R. Crim. P. 16<\/a>.\u00a0 *\u00a0 The prosecution has a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence in its possession or control when the evidence may be material to the outcome of the case.\u00a0<\/strong> See BRADY MATERIAL.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">expert evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (16c) <strong>Evidence about a scientific, technical, professional, or other specialized issue given by a person qualified to testify because of familiarity with the subject or special training in the field. <\/strong>\u2014 aka <span style=\"color: #800000;\"><em><strong>expert testimony<\/strong><\/em><\/span>.\u00a0 <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=4485\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Fed. R. Evid. 702-705<\/a>.\u00a0<\/strong> See DAUBERT TEST.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">extrajudicial evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>Evidence that does not come directly under judicial cognizance but nevertheless constitutes an intermediate link between judicial evidence and the fact requiring proof.\u00a0 *\u00a0 It includes all facts that are known to the tribunal only by way of inference from some form of judicial evidence.<\/strong>\u00a0 See JUDICIAL NOTICE.\u00a0 Cf. judicial evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">extrinsic evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <strong>1. Evidence relating to a contract but not appearing on the face of the contract because it comes from other sources, such as statements between the parties or the circumstances surrounding the agreement.\u00a0 *\u00a0 Extrinsic evidence is usually not admissible to contradict or add to the terms of an unambiguous document.<\/strong> \u2013 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">extraneous evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>; <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">parol evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>; <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">evidence aliunde<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 <strong>2. Evidence that is not legitimately before the court.\u00a0<\/strong> Cf. intrinsic evidence.\u00a0 <strong>3. Evidence that is calculated to impeach a witness\u2019s credibility, adduced by means other than cross-examination of the witness.\u00a0 *\u00a0 The means may include evidence in documents and recordings and the testi<\/strong><\/span><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>mony of other witnesses.<\/strong> See <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=4585\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>Fed. R. Evid. 608(b)<\/strong><\/a> <strong>&amp; note<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<strong>\u00a0 Excerpt from Paul F. Rothstein&#8217;s<a href=\"https:\/\/books.google.com\/books\/about\/Federal_Rules_of_Evidence.html?id=W7NPAQAAIAAJ\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em> The Federal Rules of Evidence<\/em><\/a> (3d ed. 2003):<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">Under <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=4585\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">[Federal Rule of Evidence] 608(b)<\/a><span style=\"color: #800000;\">, if the witness denies engaging in untruthful misconduct, the cross-examiner must \u2018take the witness\u2019 answer,\u2019 meaning the questioner may not introduce extrinsic evidence to contradict the witness\u2019 denial through other witness testimony or the introduction of impeaching documents, or indeed any other evidence than the cross-examination, even if the questioner waits until it is his turn to put on evidence.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong> [16]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">fabricated evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>False or deceitful evidence that is unlawfully created, usually after the relevant event, in an attempt to achieve or avoid liability or conviction. <\/strong>\u2014 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">fabricated fact<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">false evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> See <em>false testimony<\/em> under TESTIMONY.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">forensic evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>Evidence used in court; especially, evidence arrived at by scientific means (as with nuclear or mitochondrial DNA, toxicological and chemical analysis), by interpretation of patterns (as with finger prints, handwriting, etc.), or by a combination of experiential and scientific analysis (as with explosive and fire-debris analysis, blood-spatter analysis).<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">forensic-science evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">foundational evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1946) <strong>Evidence that determines the admissibility of other evidence.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">404(b) evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> <strong>Evidence of a defendant\u2019s prior bad acts admitted as evidence to prove the defendant\u2019s motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, know]edge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident rather than to establish a proclivity toward bad character.\u00a0 *\u00a0 Generally, a prosecutor wishing to use this type of evidence must notify the defendant of that intention before the trial, but a judge may waive that requirement on a showing of good cause.<\/strong> \u2014 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">uncharged c<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/span><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">rimes evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">fresh evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <strong>1. Evidence that was not available at the time of a trial but merits requiring a new trial.\u00a0 2. New evidence discovered at any time before or after a trial.\u00a0 3. Evidence present at the time of an incident or <\/strong><\/span><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">investigation.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">habit evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1921) <strong>Evidence of personal and organizational habits, which may (with or without corroboration) be admissible as a means of proving that conduct conformed to the habit or routine practice. <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?s=rule+406\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Fed. R. Evid. 406<\/a>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">hearsay evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> See HEARSAY.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">hypnotically refreshed evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> See <em>hypnotically refreshed testimony<\/em> under TESTIMONY.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">identification evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1925) <strong>An eyewitness\u2019s testimony about the identity of a crime\u2019s perpetrator.<\/strong> \u2014 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">eyewitness-identification evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">illegally obtained evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1924) <strong>Evidence obtained by violating a statute or a person\u2019s constitutional or other rights, especially the <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=14145\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Fourth Amendment<\/a> guarantee against <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=14065\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">unreasonable search and seizure<\/a>, the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, or the Sixth Amend<\/strong><\/span><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">ment right to counsel.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\"> immaterial evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>1. Evidence lacking in probative value.\u00a0 2. Evidence offered to prove a matter that is not in issue.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">impeachment evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1861) <strong>Evidence used to undermine a witness\u2019s credibility. <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=4483\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Fed. R. Evid. 607-610<\/a>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">incompetent evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>Evidence that is for any reason inadmissible.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">incriminating evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1878) <strong>Evidence tending to establish guilt or from which a fact-trier can infer guilt.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">inculpatory evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1849) <strong>Evidence showing or tending to show one\u2019s involvement in a crime or wrong.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">indispensable evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>Evidence without which a particular fact cannot be proved.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">individualized evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1985) <strong>Forensic evidence consisting in the matching of a specimen to a particular individual or other source (as with DNA, fingerprints, writing samples, tool marks, bite marks, and specimens <\/strong><\/span><strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\">such as hair).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">insufficient evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <strong>Evidence that is inadequate to prove or support a finding of something.\u00a0 *\u00a0 This term usually describes a case that is not strong enough to even <\/strong><\/span><strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\">get to the fact-finder.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">intrinsic evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <strong>1. Evidence brought out by the examination of the witness testifying.\u00a0 2. Evidence existing within a writing.<\/strong>\u00a0 Cf. extrinsic evidence (2).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">irrelevant evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>Evidence not tending to prove or disprove a matter in issue.<a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=4479\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"> Fed. R. Evid. 401-403<\/a>.<\/strong> \u2014 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">impertinent evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 See IRRELEVANT.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">judicial evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <strong>Evidence produced in court, consisting of all facts brought to the attention of or admitted into evidence before the tribunal.\u00a0<\/strong> Cf. extrajudicial evidence. .<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">legal evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <strong>1.<\/strong> See <em>admissible evidence<\/em>.\u00a0 <strong>2. All admissible evidence, both oral and documentary, of such a character that it reasonably and substantially proves the point rather than merely raising suspicion or conjecture.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">lifestyle evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> See LIFESTYLE EVIDENCE.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">material evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <strong>Evidence having some logical connection with the facts of the case or the legal issues presented.\u00a0<\/strong> Cf. relevant evidence; immaterial evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">mathematical evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>1. Loosely, evidence that establishes its conclusions with absolute certainty.\u00a0 2. Evidence relating to mathematical or statistical matters, or probabilities.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">medical evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>Evidence furnished by a doctor. nurse, or other qualified medical person testifying in a professional capacity as an expert, or by a standard treatise on medicine or surgery.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">moral evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <strong>Loosely, evidence that depends on a belief, rather than complete and absolute proof.\u00a0 *\u00a0 Generally, moral evidence is testimonial.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">multiple evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1926) <strong>Evidence with probative or other value on more than one issue but usually admitted into evidence for one specific purpose.\u00a0 *\u00a0 Impeachment evidence, for example, may not be probative on a particular issue but may nonetheless affect the jury&#8217;s perceptions of several issues.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">negative evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <strong>Evidence suggesting that an alleged fact does not exist, such as a witness\u2019s testifying that he or she did not see an event occur.\u00a0 *\u00a0 Negative evidence is generally regarded as weaker than positive evidence because a positive assertion that a witness saw an event is a stronger statement than an assertion that a witness did not see it.\u00a0 But a negative assertion will sometimes be considered positive evidence, depending on the witness\u2019s opportunity to see the event.\u00a0 For instance, testimony that the witness watched the entire game and saw no riot in the stands is stronger than testimony stating only that the witness did not see a riot.<\/strong> \u2014 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">negative testimony<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 Cf. direct evidence (1).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">newly discovered evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>Evidence existing at the time of a motion or trial but then unknown to a party, who, upon later discovering it, may assert it as grounds for reconsideration or a new trial.<\/strong> See <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=4398\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>Fed. R. <\/strong><\/a><\/span><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>Civ. P. 60(b)<\/strong>. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">no evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> See NO EVIDENCE. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">opinion evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1955) <strong>A witness\u2019s belief, thought, inference, or conclusion concerning a fact or facts.<\/strong> <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=4485\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Fed. R. Evid. 702-705<\/a><\/strong>.\u00a0 See OPINION (3); OPINION RULE.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\">\u00a0<strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from James B. Thayer&#8217;s <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/cu31924017931712\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law<\/em><\/a> (1898):<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">In a sense all testimony to matter of fact is opinion evidence; i.e. it is a conclusion formed from phenomena and mental impressions.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong> [17]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">original evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c)<strong> 1. A witness\u2019s statement that he or she perceived a fact in issue by one of the five senses, or that the witness was in a particular physical or mental state. <\/strong>\u2014 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">direct evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 Cf. HEARSAY.\u00a0 <strong>2.<\/strong> See <em>best evidence<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">parol evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>1. Evidence of oral statements.<\/strong>\u00a0 <strong>2.<\/strong> See <em>extrinsic evidence<\/em> (1). See PAROL <\/span><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\">EVIDENCE RULE.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from R.S. Dongison Roper&#8217;s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ebay.com\/i\/362003767887?chn=ps\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Treatise upon the Law of Legacies<\/em><\/a> (1800):<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">The Admission of parol Evidence to explain Doubts or Difficulties arising upon Instruments, has been for a long Time watched over by Courts of Justice with a jealous Eye; it is considered as an unfound Mode of Interpretation, and some of the modern Judges have expressed them selves of Opinion, that Justice would have been better and more fairly administered, if parol Evidence had never been admitted. But as the Province of Judges is merely to dispense the Law as they find it settled, and they have considered themselves bound to admit this Kind of Evidence in certain Cases in which it has been allowed and established by prior Adjudications.\u00a0 One of the Instances in which such Evidence has been admitted is, in Cases Of wrong or imperfect Descriptions of Legatees, and to ascertain Legatees when their Names have been misspelled, or mistaken.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong> [18]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">partial evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <strong>Evidence that establishes one of a series of facts.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">personal evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> See TESTIMONY. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">preappointed evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> ( 1850) <strong>Evidence prescribed in advance (as by statute) for the proof of certain facts.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">preliminary evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>Evidence that is necessary to begin a hearing or trial and that may be received conditionally in anticipation of other evidence linking it to issues in the case. <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=4501\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Fed. R. Evid. 104<\/a>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">presumptive evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <strong>1. Evidence deemed sufficient to establish another fact unless discredited by other evidence.\u00a0 2.<\/strong> <em>Archaic<\/em>.<strong> Circumstantial evidence as distinct from testimonial evidence.<\/strong> \u2014 aka <\/span><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">probable evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">prima facie evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>Evidence that will establish a fact or sustain a judgment unless contradictory evidence is produced.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from John H. Wigmore&#8217;s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/students-textbook-law-evidence-University\/dp\/B00085SIHO\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Students\u2019 Textbook of the Law of Evidence<\/em><\/a> (1935):<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">The legislative branch may create an evidential presumption, or a rule of \u2018prima facie\u2019 evidence, i.e., a rule which does not shut out evidence, but merely declares that certain conduct shall suffice as evidence until the opponent produces contrary evidence.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong> [19]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">primary evidence<\/span> &#8211; 1.<\/strong> See best evidence.\u00a0 <strong>2.<\/strong> <em>Criminal procedure<\/em>. <strong>Evidence directly discovered in a search, as distinguished from derivative evidence later developed from that primary evidence.\u00a0 *\u00a0 If the search was illegal, whether the evidence is primary or derivative is part of the analysis for whether it must be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree or allowed because it would inevitably have been discovered anyway.\u00a0<\/strong> See PRIMARY EVIDENCE RULE; INEVITABLE-DISCOVERY RULE.\u00a0 Cf. derivative evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">privileged evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1897) <strong>Evidence that is exempt from production to an opposing party or tribunal (with certain, limited exceptions) because it is covered by one or more statutory or common-law protections, such as the attorney-client privilege.\u00a0<\/strong> See <em>privileged communication<\/em> under COMMUNICATION.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">probative evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1877) <strong>Evidence that tends to prove or disprove a point in issue.<\/strong>\u00a0 Cf. relevant evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">proffered evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1904) <strong>1. Evidence that is offered to the court to obtain a ruling on its admissibility.\u00a0 2. Evidence whose admissibility depends on the existence or nonexistence of a preliminary fact.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">prospectant evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1924) <strong>Circumstantial evidence existing before someone does an act and suggesting that the person might or might not do the act.\u00a0 *\u00a0 This evidence typically falls into any of five categories: (1) moral character or disposition. (2) physical and mental capacity, (3) habit or custom, (4) emotion or motive, and (5) plan, design, or intention.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\">\u00a0<strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from Rupert Cross, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Evidence-Sir-Rupert-Cross\/dp\/0406515611\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Evidence<\/em><\/a> 28 (3d ed. 1967):<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">The first section of this chapter illustrates one of the classifications of circumstantial evidence adopted by Wigmore. His division of the subject into \u2018prospectant,\u2019 \u2018concomitant,\u2019 and \u2018retrospectant\u2019 evidence involves the use of strange words, but it has the merit of stressing the main types of argument by which the relevance of one fact <\/span><\/span><\/strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">to another may be established.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong> [20]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\"><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">real evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <strong>1. Physical evidence (such as clothing or a knife wound) that itself plays a direct part in the incident in question.<\/strong> \u2014 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">physical <\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/span><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 <strong>2.<\/strong> See <em>demonstrative evidence<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from John Salmond&#8217;s <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/jurisprudence00salm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Jurisprudence<\/em><\/a> (Glanville L. Williams ed., 10th ed.1947):<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">Anything which is believed for any other reason than that someone has said so, is believed on real evidence.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong> [21]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">rebuttal evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1859) <strong>Evidence offered to disprove or contradict the evidence presented by an opposing party.\u00a0 *\u00a0 Rebuttal evidence is introduced in the rebutting party\u2019s answering case; it is not adduced, e.g., through cross-examination during the case-in-chief of the party to be rebutted.<\/strong> \u2014 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">rebutting evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">relevant evidence <\/span>&#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>Evidence tending to prove or disprove a matter in issue.\u00a0 *\u00a0 Relevant evidence is both probative and material and is admissible unless excluded by a specific statute or rule. <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=4479\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Fed. R. Evid. 401-403<\/a><\/strong><\/span><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>. <\/strong>\u2014 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">competent evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 Cf. material evidence; probative evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">reputation evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1888) <strong>Evidence of what one is thought by others to be.\u00a0 *\u00a0 Reputation evidence may be introduced as proof of character when character is in issue or is used circumstantially. <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=4521\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Fed. R. Evid. 405(a)<\/a>.<\/strong> \u2014 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">reputational evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>. Cf. char acter evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">retrospectant evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1929)<strong> Circumstantial evidence that, although it occurs after an act has been done, suggests that the alleged doer of the act actually did it<\/strong> &lt;when goods have been stolen, and the thief is sought, a person\u2019s later possession of those goods amounts to retrospectant evidence that this person took <strong>them&gt;.<\/strong> \u2014 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">traces<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 Cf. prospectant evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=13691\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-size: 18pt;\">sufficient evidence<\/span><\/a> &#8211; evidence such as will satisfy an unprejudiced mind of the truth of that which the court or jury has found to be the <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=13671\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">fact<\/a>.\u00a0<\/strong>\u2013 aka<span style=\"color: #800000;\"> <em><strong>satisfactory evidence<\/strong><\/em><\/span>; <span style=\"color: #800000;\"><em><strong>satisfactory proof<\/strong><\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">scientific evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <strong>Fact or opinion evidence that purports to draw on specialized knowledge of a science or to rely on scientific principles for its evidentiary value.\u00a0<\/strong> See DAUBERT TEST.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">secondary evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> ( 17c) <strong>Evidence that is inferior to the primary or best evidence and that becomes admissible when the primary or best evidence is lost or inaccessible.\u00a0 *\u00a0 Examples include a copy of a lost instrument or testimony regarding a lost instrument\u2019s contents. <\/strong>\u2014 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">mediate evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>; <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">mediate testimony<\/span><\/strong><\/em>; <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">substitutionary evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 See <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=4711\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>Fed. R. Evid. 1004<\/strong><\/a>. Cf. best evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">secondhand evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> See HEARSAY.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">secret evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1983) <strong>Classified information that may be used against a defendant in an immigration proceeding but withheld from the defendant, the defendant\u2019s lawyer, and the public on national-security grounds.\u00a0 *\u00a0 The use of secret evidence was made easier under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">signature evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1987) <strong>Highly distinctive evidence of a person\u2019s prior bad acts.\u00a0 *\u00a0 While ordinarily inadmissible, signature evidence will be admitted if it shows, for example, that two crimes were committed through <\/strong><\/span><strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\">the same planning, design, scheme, or <em>modus operandi<\/em>, and in such a way that the prior act and the current act <\/span><\/strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>are uniquely identifiable as those of the defendant.\u00a0<\/strong> See <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=4519\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)<\/strong><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\">slight evidence &#8211; (18c) <strong>A small quantity of evidence; esp., the small amount of evidence sufficient to remove a presumption from a case or for a rational fact-finder to conclude that something essential has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">slight evidence rule<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1936) <strong>1. The doctrine that if evidence establishes the existence of a conspiracy between at least two other people, the prosecution need only offer slight<\/strong><\/span><strong><span style=\"color: #000000;\">evidence of a defendant\u2019s knowing participation or intentional involvement in the conspiracy to secure a conviction.\u00a0 *\u00a0 This rule was first announced in<span style=\"color: #800000;\"><em> Tomplain v. U.S<\/em>., 42 F.2d 202, 203 (5th Cir. 1930)<\/span>.\u00a0 In the decades after <em>Tomplain<\/em>, other circuits adopted the rule, but not until <\/span><\/strong><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong>the 1970s did the<\/strong><span class=\"text_exposed_show\"><strong>\u00a0rule become widespread. Since then, the rule has been widely criticized and, in most circuits, abolished.<\/strong>\u00a0 See, e .g.,<strong> <span style=\"color: #800000;\"><em>U.S. v. Durrive<\/em>, 902 F. 2d 1379, 1380 n. * (7th Cir. 1990)<\/span><\/strong>.\u00a0 <strong>But its vitality remains undiminished in some jurisdictions.\u00a0 2. The doctrine that only slight evidence of a defendant\u2019s participation in a conspiracy need be offered in order to admit a coconspirator\u2019 s out-of-court statement <\/strong><\/span><strong>under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule.\u00a0<\/strong> See<\/span> <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=4633\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)<\/strong><\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">social-framework evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1988) <strong>Evidence derived from social-science research to help determine factual issues in a specific case.\u00a0 *\u00a0 Examples are testimony about eyewitness inaccuracy based on studies of human memory, the likelihood of a defendant\u2019s being a threat to society in the future based on studies of other individuals convicted of similar crimes and their subsequent behavior, and testimony about battering and its effects.<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/span><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\">See <span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>W. Laurens Walker and John Monahan, <em>Social Frameworks: A New Use of Social Science in Law<\/em>, 73 Va. <\/strong><\/span><\/span><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>L. Rev. 559, 559-70 (1987)<\/strong><\/span>.<strong> Social-framework evidence has been widely admitted in courts around the country.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">state\u2019s evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1886) <strong>Testimony provided by one criminal defendant \u2014 under a promise of immunity or reduced sentence \u2014 against another criminal defendant.<\/strong><br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">Queen\u2019s evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <em>English law<\/em>. <strong>Testimony provided by one criminal defendant, usu. under a promise of pardon, against another criminal defendant.<\/strong> \u2014 aka (when a king reigns) <span style=\"color: #800000;\"><em><strong>King\u2019s evidence<\/strong><\/em><\/span>.<br \/>\n<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">turn state&#8217;s evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> <em>vb<\/em>. (1846) <strong>To cooperate with prosecutors and testify against other criminal defendants<\/strong> &lt;after hours of intense negotiations, the suspect accepted a plea bargain and agreed to turn state&#8217;s evidence&gt;<strong>.<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\"><strong>subsequent-act evidence<\/strong><\/span> <strong>&#8211;<\/strong> (1979) <em>Criminal law<\/em>. <strong>Evidence of a criminal defendant\u2019s bad behavior after the alleged commission of an offense, admissible under <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=4519\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)<\/a> if the behavior is relevant to intent, motive, opportunity, identity, or the absence of mistake or accident.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">substantial evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <strong>1. Evidence that a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support a conclusion; evidence beyond a scintilla.<\/strong>\u00a0 See SUBSTANTIAL-EVIDENCE RULE.\u00a0 <strong>2. The product of adequately controlled investigations, including clinical studies, carried out by qualified <\/strong><\/span><strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\">experts that establish the effectiveness of a drug under FSA regulations. 21 USCA \u00a7 355(e).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">substantive evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>Evidence offered to help establish a fact in issue, as opposed to evidence directed to impeach or to support a witness\u2019s <\/strong><\/span><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>credibility.<\/strong> <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\"><strong>suspect evidence<\/strong><\/span> &#8211; (1952) <strong>Evidence that is admissible but of a type that may turn out to be incorrect or untrue.\u00a0 *\u00a0 For example, evidence given by an accomplice is suspect because the accomplice may want to shift blame to the defendant.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">tainted evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1876) <strong>Evidence that is inadmissible because it was directly or indirectly obtained by illegal means.<\/strong>\u00a0 See FRUIT-OF-THE-POISONOUS-TREE DOCTRINE.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">tainted evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1876) <strong>Evidence that is inadmissible because it was directly or indirectly obtained by illegal means.\u00a0<\/strong> See FRUIT-OF-THE-POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE,<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">tangible evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> ( 18c) <strong>Physical evidence that is either real or demonstrative.\u00a0<\/strong> See <em>demonstrative evidence<\/em>; <em>real <\/em><\/span><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><em>evidence<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">testimonial evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1831) <strong>A person\u2019s testimony offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted; especially evidence elicited from a witness.\u00a0<\/strong>\u2014 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">communicative evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>; <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">oral evidence<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 Cf. demonstrative evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<strong>\u00a0 Excerpt from John H. Wigmore&#8217;s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/students-textbook-law-evidence-University\/dp\/B00085SIHO\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Students\u2019 Textbook of the Law of Evidence<\/em><\/a> (1935):<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">An assertion is testimonial evidence whether made out of court or in court, if it is offered with a view to persuading the tribunal of the matter asserted.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong> [22]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">traditionary evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>Evidence derived from a deceased person\u2019s former statements or reputation.\u00a0 *\u00a0 Traditionary evidence is admissible to prove ancestry, ancient boundaries, or similar facts, usually when no living witnesses are available to testify.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from Thomas Starkie&#8217;s <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/cu31924020112888\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Practical Treatise on the Law of Evidence<\/em><\/a> (2d Am. ed. 1828):<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">Traditionary evidence as to rights, or declarations as to pedigree, must be derived from those persons who were in a situation to know what the rights were, or, in the latter case, from such as were connected with the family.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong> [23]<br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">unwritten evidence<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (18c) <strong>Evidence given orally. in court or by deposition.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidence code<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1877) <strong>A relatively comprehensive set of statutory provisions or rules governing the admissibility of evidence at hearings and trials.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidence of debt<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> See SECURITY (4). evidence of indebtedness. See SECURITY (4).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidence of insurability<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1905) <strong>Information such as medical records or a medical examination -that an insurer may require to establish a potential insured\u2019s qualification for a particular insurance policy.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidence of title<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (17c) <strong>The means by which the ownership <\/strong><\/span><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>of land is satisfactorily demonstrated within a given jurisdiction.\u00a0<\/strong> See DEED (2), (3).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Excerpt from Robert Kratovil&#8217;s <a href=\"https:\/\/books.google.com\/books?id=rgY8AQAAIAAJ&amp;q=Robert+Kratovil,+Real+Estate+Law&amp;dq=Robert+Kratovil,+Real+Estate+Law&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiYs5vk9LDZAhUo9YMKHcVsBisQ6AEILjAB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Real Estate Law<\/em><\/a> (6th ed. 1974):<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c<span style=\"color: #800000;\">There are four kinds of evidence of title: abstract and opinion, certificate of title, title insurance and Torrens certificate.\u00a0 The certificate of title is used extensively in the Eastern states, and some Southern states.\u00a0 In urban centers in a great many sections of the country, title insurance occupies a dominant position in real estate transactions.\u00a0 In farm areas the abstract and opinion method is common.\u00a0 To a great extent, the acceptability of a particular kind of evidence of title depends on the local custom.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong> [24]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\"><strong>evidence locker<\/strong><\/span> &#8211; See PROPERTY ROOM. evidence room. See PROPERTY ROOM. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidencing feature<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> (1973) <em>Evidence<\/em>. <strong>A group of circumstances that, when taken as a whole, form a composite feature that can be reliably associated with a single object.\u00a0 *\u00a0 This term appears more frequently in criminal cases than in civil.\u00a0 In criminal cases, it usu. refers to evidence that establishes a perpetrator\u2019s identity, but in civil cases it often refers to evidence that an event did or did not occur.<\/strong> \u2014 aka <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">evidencing mark<\/span><\/strong><\/em>; <em><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">evidential mark<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidential uncertainty<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> See UNCERTAINTY.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidentiary <\/span>&#8211;<\/strong> <em>adj<\/em>. (1810) <strong>1. Having the quality of evidence; constituting evidence; evidencing. 2. Of, relating to, or involving the rules of evidence or the evidence in a particular case.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidentiary error<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> See ERROR (2).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidentiary privilege<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> See PRIVILEGE (3). [1]<br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidence by comparison<\/span> &#8211; Evidence admitted to prove the quality of a thing by comparing one thing with another under such circumstances that the similarity of the subjects of comparison is reasonably sufficient to give the result of the comparison <\/span><\/strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong>sound probative force. <span style=\"color: #800000;\">46 Am J1st Sales \u00a7 310<\/span>.\u00a0<\/strong> See <em>comparison of handwriting<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidence in mitigation<\/span> &#8211; Proof of facts tending to show that the conceded or assumed cause of action does not entitle the plaintiff to as large an amount <\/span><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">of damages as might otherwise be recoverable. <span style=\"color: #800000;\">22 Am J2d Damg \u00a7 291<\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidence introduced<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> See introduced evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidence of debt<\/span> &#8211; Any written instrument for the payment of money.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidence offered<\/span> &#8211;<\/strong> See offered evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidence of title<\/span> &#8211; A deed or other instrument establishing title to property, particularly real estate.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evident <\/span>&#8211; Plainly seen or understood; manifest; obvious.<br \/>\n<\/span><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">Under a constitutional provision guaranteeing the right to bail except in capital cases when the proof is \u201cevident,&#8221; the word has been viewed as meaning manifest. plain. clear. obvious, apparent, and notorious. <span style=\"color: #800000;\">8 Am J2d Bail \u00a7 50<\/span>. In a more technical and precise sense, such probative facts as are requisite to prove ultimate facts.\u00a0 Ultimate facts are the facts which are pleaded and probative and evidentiary facts are those which supply the proof of <\/span><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">the ultimate facts. <span style=\"color: #800000;\">41 Am J1st Pl \u00a7 8.<\/span> <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidentiary facts<\/span> &#8211; The facts admissible in evidence.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidently <\/span>&#8211; In an evident manner.\u00a0<\/strong> See evident. [2]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidence aliunde<\/span> &#8211; Evidence from another source or another <\/span><\/strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>place; parol evidence; extrinsic evidence.<\/strong>\u00a0 See aliunde.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidence in mitigation<\/span> &#8211;<\/span><\/strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong> In a civil action, proof of facts tending to show that the plaintiff is not entitled to the amount of damages that might otherwise be recoverable. See mitigation; mitigation of damages.\u00a0 In a criminal prosecution, proof of facts tending to show that a convicted defendant\u2019s punishment should not be as severe as it might otherwise be or that the degree of the crime should be reduced.<\/strong>\u00a0 See <em>mitigating circumstances<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidence of debt<\/span> &#8211; Any written instrument revealing a monetary obligation. EXAMPLES: a bond; a mortgage; a note.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidence of insurability<\/span> &#8211; Evidence an insurance company requires before it will issue a life insurance policy. EXAMPLE: a medical examination and <\/span><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\">report.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidence of title<\/span> &#8211; A deed or other instrument establishing title to property, particularly real estate.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidencing <\/span>&#8211; Proving; establishing; demonstrating; showing.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidential breath test<\/span> &#8211; A scientific device that gives blood alcohol readings. It operates on the principle that blood alcohol in the body is concentrated in a constant ratio to the concentration of blood in the lung.\u00a0 An EBT is the only type of breath test that is admissible evidence.\u00a0<\/strong><br \/>\nSee blood alcohol concentration; breathalyzer; drunk-o-meter.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff; font-size: 18pt;\">evidentiary facts<\/span> &#8211; Facts admissible in evidence.<\/strong> <\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000000; font-size: 14pt;\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 See <em>probative facts<\/em>; <em>ultimate facts<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\">Compare <em>proof<\/em>.<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"> See <em>admissible evidence<\/em>.<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"font-size: 14pt; color: #000000;\"> Also see best evidence; character evidence; circumstantial evidence; competent evidence; corroborating evidence; cumulative evidence; demonstrative evidence; documentary evidence; extrinsic evidence; legal evidence; material evidence; newly discovered evidence; opinion evidence; paol evidence; prima facie evidence; rebuttal evidence; relevant evidence; rules of evidence; secondary evidence; state\u2019s evidence. [3]<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"CENTER\"><strong><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><span style=\"font-size: x-large;\">References:<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p align=\"CENTER\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Disclaimer:<\/span><\/span><\/strong><strong><span style=\"font-size: large;\"> All material throughout this website is compiled in accordance with <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/\/?page_id=2191\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Fair Use<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\" align=\"CENTER\"><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\"><strong>Feature Image from Disney&#8217;s <a href=\"http:\/\/movies.disney.com\/honey-i-shrunk-the-kids\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Honey, I Shrunk the Kids<\/em><\/a>: <a href=\"http:\/\/movies.disney.com\/honey-i-shrunk-the-kids\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/movies.disney.com\/honey-i-shrunk-the-kids<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><b>[1]: <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/\/?page_id=5154#sdfootnote1anc\" name=\"sdfootnote1sym\">Black\u2019s Law Dictionary\u00a0Deluxe Tenth Edition\u00a0by Henry Campbell Black &amp; Editor in Chief Bryan A. Garner<\/a>. ISBN: 978-0-314-62130-6<\/b><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><b>[2]: <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/\/?page_id=9167\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Ballantine\u2019s Law Dictionary\u00a0<\/a><\/b><\/span><\/strong><a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/\/?page_id=9167\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><b>with Pronunciations<br \/>\n<\/b><\/span><\/em><strong><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><b>Third Edition<\/b><\/span><\/strong><\/a><strong><span style=\"font-size: large;\">\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><strong><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><b>by James A. Ballantine\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/strong><em><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><b>(James Arthur 1871-1949).\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/em><strong><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><b>Edited by William S. Anderson.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a9 1969 by THE LAWYER\u2019S CO-OPERATIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY.\u00a0 Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 68-30931<\/b><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><b>[3]:\u00a0\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/\/?page_id=7679\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Ballantine\u2019s Law Dictionary <\/a><\/b><\/span><\/strong><em><a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/\/?page_id=7679\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><b>Legal Assistant Edition<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/em><strong><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><b><br \/>\nby Jack Ballantine\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/strong><em><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><b>(James Arthur 1871-1949).\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/em><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.lawyeredu.org\/what-is-a-juris-doctorate-degree.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><b>Doctored<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/strong><em><span style=\"font-size: large;\">\u00a0<\/span><\/em><strong><span style=\"font-size: large;\"><b>by\u00a0Jack G. Handler,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.lawyeredu.org\/what-is-a-juris-doctorate-degree.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">J.D.<\/a>\u00a0\u00a9 1994 Delmar by Thomson Learning.\u00a0 ISBN 0-8273-4874-6.<\/b><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\">[4]: James B. Thayer, <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/jstor-1321688\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Presumptions and the Law of Evidence<\/em><\/a>, 3 Harv. L. Rev. 141, 142 (1889).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\">[5]: 1 Charles Frederic Chamberlayne, <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/cu31924020154310\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Treatise on the Modern Law of Evidence<\/em><\/a> 5 2, at 4 (1911).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\">[6]: Corpus Juris Secundum, <em>Evidence<\/em> (1996).<br \/>\n<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\">[7]: 32A C.J.S. <em>Evidence<\/em> 5 1054, at 417 (1996).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\">[8]: Alexander M. Burrill, <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/cu31924020622894\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Treatise on the Nature, Principles and Rules of Circumstantial Evidence<\/em><\/a> 4 (1868).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\">[9]: Henry David Thoreau, Journal, 11 Nov. 1850, in 2 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Journal-Henry-D-Thoreau-Vol\/dp\/0486203131\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Journal of Henry D. Thoreau<\/em><\/a> 94 (Bradford Torrey &amp; Francis H. Allen eds., 1962).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\">[10]: William P. Richardson, <em>The Law of Evidence <\/em>5 111, at 68 (3d ed. 1928).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\">[11]: John H. Wigmore, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblio.com\/book\/students-textbook-law-evidence-wigmorejohn-h\/d\/992060326?aid=frg&amp;utm_source=google&amp;utm_medium=product&amp;utm_campaign=feed-details&amp;gclid=CjwKCAiA8P_TBRA9EiwAJrpHM7D50OdlsWOK8mdaq42EPiPZr_vlGwOh-mLBGtNftv9Htf8C9BFHRBoCoQwQAvD_BwE\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Students\u2019 Textbook of the Law of Evidence<\/em><\/a> 38 (1935).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\">[12]: John H. Wigmore, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/students-textbook-law-evidence-University\/dp\/B00085SIHO\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Students&#8217; Textbook of the Law of Evidence<\/em><\/a> 39 (1935).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\">[13]: 1 Charles Frederic Chamberlayne, <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/cu31924020154310\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Treatise on the Modern Law of Evidence<\/em><\/a> 5,15, at 16 (1911).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\">[14]: John H. Wigmore, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/students-textbook-law-evidence-University\/dp\/B00085SIHO\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Students\u2019 Textbook of the Law of Evidence <\/em><\/a>40 (1935).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\">[15]: John Salmond, <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/jurisprudence00salm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Jurisprudence<\/em><\/a> 485 (Glanville L. Williams ed., 10th ed. 1947).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\">[16]: Paul F. Rothstein,<a href=\"https:\/\/books.google.com\/books\/about\/Federal_Rules_of_Evidence.html?id=W7NPAQAAIAAJ\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em> The Federal Rules of Evidence<\/em><\/a> 312 (3d ed. 2003).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\">[17]: James B. Thayer, <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/cu31924017931712\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law<\/em><\/a> 524 (1898).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\">[18]: R.S. Dongison Roper, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ebay.com\/i\/362003767887?chn=ps\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Treatise upon the Law of Legacies<\/em><\/a> 21 (1800).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\">[19]: John H. Wigmore, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/students-textbook-law-evidence-University\/dp\/B00085SIHO\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Students\u2019 Textbook of the Law of Evidence<\/em><\/a> 237 (1935).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\">[20]: Rupert Cross, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Evidence-Sir-Rupert-Cross\/dp\/0406515611\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Evidence<\/em><\/a> 28 (3d ed. 1967).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\">[21]: John Salmond, <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/jurisprudence00salm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Jurisprudence<\/em><\/a> 480 (Glanville L. Williams ed., 10th ed.1947).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\">[22]: John H. Wigmore, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/students-textbook-law-evidence-University\/dp\/B00085SIHO\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Students\u2019 Textbook of the Law of Evidence<\/em><\/a> 120 (1935).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\">[23]: 1 Thomas Starkie, <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/cu31924020112888\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>A Practical Treatise on the Law of Evidence<\/em><\/a> 62 (2d Am. ed. 1828).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"font-size: 14pt;\">[24]: Robert Kratovil, <a href=\"https:\/\/books.google.com\/books?id=rgY8AQAAIAAJ&amp;q=Robert+Kratovil,+Real+Estate+Law&amp;dq=Robert+Kratovil,+Real+Estate+Law&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiYs5vk9LDZAhUo9YMKHcVsBisQ6AEILjAB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Real Estate Law<\/em><\/a> 170 (6th ed. 1974).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p align=\"CENTER\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-size: medium;\">*******************************<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p align=\"CENTER\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-size: x-large;\">Home Page<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<p align=\"CENTER\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff00ff;\"><span style=\"font-size: x-large;\">Like this website?<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p align=\"CENTER\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/wildwillpower.org\/contact-us\/wild-willpower-pac-needs-food-outdoor-gear-a-prius-v\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span style=\"font-size: x-large;\">Please Support Our Fundraiser<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<p align=\"CENTER\"><strong><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><span style=\"font-size: x-large;\">or donate via\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.paypal.com\/\">PayPal<\/a>:<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<h4 class=\"western\" align=\"CENTER\"><span style=\"font-size: x-large;\"><ul class=\"ul-addw2p ul-addw2p-paypalbutton\">\n<li>please set some widgets to show from Appearance -> Widgets.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/span><\/h4>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.reunitethestates.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/ReUniteTheStates-Card.jpg?resize=474%2C271\" width=\"474\" height=\"271\" name=\"graphics1\" align=\"BOTTOM\" border=\"0\" \/><\/p>\n<p align=\"CENTER\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><span style=\"font-size: large;\">Disclaimer:<\/span><\/span><\/strong><strong><span style=\"font-size: large;\">\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.wildwillpower.org\/\">Wild Willpower<\/a>\u00a0does not condone the actions of\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=OglrzNohp3Q\">Maximilian Robespierre<\/a>, however the above quote is excellent!<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p align=\"CENTER\"><strong><span style=\"font-size: large;\">This website is being broadcast for\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.wildwillpower.org\/about-wild-willpower\/a-peaceable-assembly-of-civilians\">First Amendment purposes<\/a>\u00a0courtesy of<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000080;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.wildwillpower.org\/about-wild-willpower\/a-peaceable-assembly-of-civilians\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/www.reunitethestates.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/08\/Wild-WIllpower-array-of-greens.jpg?resize=474%2C83\" width=\"474\" height=\"83\" name=\"graphics2\" align=\"BOTTOM\" border=\"1\" \/><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"CENTER\"><span style=\"font-size: x-large;\">Question(s)?\u00a0 Suggestion(s)?<br \/>\nDistance@WildWillpower.org.<br \/>\n<\/span><em><span style=\"font-size: x-large;\">We look forward to hearing from you!<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This page is continued from Court Proceedings &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Terms used in Civil and Criminal Proceedings: *********************** evidence: n. (14c) 1. Something (including testimony, documents, and tangible objects) that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact; anything presented to the senses and offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=13632\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Evidence &#8211; testimony, documents, and tangible objects which prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact<\/span> <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":14304,"parent":13488,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-13632","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/13632","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13632"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/13632\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14312,"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/13632\/revisions\/14312"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/13488"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/14304"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}