- Key People:
- John Henry Wigmore
Evidence
-
What is evidence in law?
In law, evidence refers to factual assertions or material items presented to a competent tribunal to ascertain the truth of a fact under investigation. The law of evidence comprises procedural regulations concerning the proof and presentation of facts, including witness testimony, documents, physical objects, and foreign law assertions.
Anglo-American law recognizes witnesses, documents, and real evidence as classic means of proof. Real evidence, also known as demonstrative or objective evidence, is direct because the judge or jury inspects the objects. However, it must be relevant and genuine to be admitted as proof and authenticated by witness testimony.
The evaluation of evidence differs across legal traditions. The inquisitorial system, used in continental European countries, involves an active judge who searches for facts. In contrast, the accusatorial system, used in common-law countries, relies on parties and attorneys to present evidence, with the judge intervening only if necessary.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why is evidence important in legal cases?
In legal cases, evidence serves as the foundation for ascertaining the truth of any alleged matter under investigation before a competent tribunal. Courts have a primary duty to conduct proper proceedings to hear and consider evidence so that decisions are based on truth. The law of evidence comprises procedural regulations concerning the proof and presentation of facts, including witness testimony, documents, and physical objects. Evidence is crucial because it advances the inquiry and has probative value for the decision.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What are the main types of evidence used in court?
In Anglo-American law, courts recognize witnesses, documents, and real evidence as classic means of proof. Continental European law acknowledges witnesses, parties, experts, documents, and real evidence as separate sources.
- Real evidence or demonstrative evidence is direct, involving the inspection of objects by the judge or jury.
- Documentary evidence is considered reliable and is governed by specific rules. Authenticity is key, with methods to verify documents, including testimony or circumstantial evidence.
- Witnesses can offer testimony, with experts and parties in civil lawsuits also accorded witness status.
Evidence can be direct, such as a witness account, or circumstantial, where a fact is inferred. Most convictions rely on circumstantial evidence that meets proof standards. Overall, evidence in court aims to ascertain the truth through various means presented to a tribunal.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How do courts decide if evidence is allowed or not?
In legal systems, courts decide the admissibility of evidence based on its relevance and adherence to specific rules. Relevant evidence advances the inquiry and has probative value for the decision. However, even relevant evidence may be inadmissible if it violates legal principles.
Common-law countries use accusatorial or adversary systems, where parties present evidence, and judges ensure fairness and legal compliance. A key concept is the exclusionary rule, which, in the United States, deems evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights inadmissible, even if it proves guilt. This rule, subject to some exceptions, aims to deter unlawful conduct by police.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What is the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence?
In law, direct evidence is drawn from direct observation of a fact in question. For example, a witness testifies that they saw a defendant shoot a person, who then died.
Circumstantial evidence relies on inference to establish a fact. For example, a witness testifies that they heard a shot and arrived to see the accused standing over the body with a smoking pistol. Circumstantial evidence proves other events or circumstances which allow a reasonable inference of the fact at issue.
Most criminal convictions rely on circumstantial evidence, which must meet established standards of proof. The most direct evidence is real evidence, where objects are inspected by the judge or jury. Real evidence must be authenticated by witness testimony to be accepted as legal proof.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How can evidence influence the outcome of a trial?
Evidence plays a crucial role in trials by providing a means of ascertaining the truth of alleged facts under investigation. The presentation of evidence is primarily the responsibility of the parties and their attorneys. Evidence is deemed relevant if it advances the inquiry and has probative value for the decision.
There are different types of evidence, including witness testimony, documents, and real evidence, also known as demonstrative or objective evidence. Circumstantial evidence can also influence a trial's outcome by providing a basis for reasonable inference of the occurrence of a fact at issue. However, the evidence must meet established standards of proof.
The judge's role is to enforce the rules governing evidence. The evidence must be convincing to the jury members, who form their judgment on the basis of free conviction. The jury’s verdict can be overturned by the judge if inconsistent with the evidence.
6 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
Evidence, in law, any of the material items or assertions of fact that may be submitted to a competent tribunal as a means of ascertaining the truth of any alleged matter of fact under investigation before it.
To the end that court decisions are to be based on truth founded on evidence, a primary duty of courts is to conduct proper proceedings so as to hear and consider evidence. The so-called law of evidence is made up largely of procedural regulations concerning the proof and presentation of facts, whether involving the testimony of witnesses, the presentation of documents or physical objects, or the assertion of a foreign law. The many rules of evidence that have evolved under different legal systems have, in the main, been founded on experience and shaped by varying legal requirements of what constitutes admissible and sufficient proof.
Although evidence, in this sense, has both legal and technical characteristics, judicial evidence has always been a human rather than a technical problem. During different periods and at different cultural stages, problems concerning evidence have been resolved by widely different methods. Since the means of acquiring evidence are clearly variable and delimited, they can result only in a degree of probability and not in an absolute truth in the philosophical sense. In common-law countries, civil cases require only preponderant probability, and criminal cases require probability beyond reasonable doubt. In civil-law countries so much probability is required that reasonable doubts are excluded.
" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">
The early law of evidence
Characteristic features of the law of evidence in earlier cultures were that no distinction was made between civil and criminal matters or between fact and law and that rational means of evidence were either unknown or little used. In general, the accused had to prove his innocence.
Nonrational sources of evidence
The appeal to supernatural powers was, of course, not evidence in the modern sense but an ordeal in which God was appealed to as the highest judge. The judges of the community determined what different kinds of ordeals were to be suffered, and frequently the ordeals involved threatening the accused with fire, a hot iron, or drowning. It may be that a certain awe associated with the two great elements of fire and water made them appear preeminently suitable for dangerous tests by which God himself was to pass on guilt or innocence. Trial by battle had much the same origin. To be sure, the powerful man relied on his strength, but it was also assumed that God would be on the side of right.
Semirational sources of evidence
The accused free person could offer to exonerate himself by oath. Under these circumstances, in contrast to the ordeals, it was not expected that God would rule immediately but rather that he would punish the perjurer at a later time. Nevertheless, there was ordinarily enough realism so that the mere oath of the accused person alone was not allowed. Rather, he was ordered to swear with a number of compurgators, or witnesses, who confirmed, so to speak, the oath of the person swearing. They stood as guarantees for his oath but never gave any testimony about the facts.
The significance of these first witnesses is seen in the use of the German word Zeuge, which now means “witness” but originally meant “drawn in.” The witnesses were, in fact, “drawn in” to perform a legal act as instrumental witnesses. But they gave only their opinions and consequently did not testify about facts with which they were acquainted. Nevertheless, together with community witnesses, they paved the way for the more rational use of evidence.
The trusted destination for professionals, college students, and lifelong learners.
SUBSCRIBE
The influence of Roman-canonical law
By the 13th century, ordeals were no longer used, though the custom of trial by battle lasted until the 14th and 15th centuries. The judicial machinery destroyed by dropping these sources of evidence could not be replaced by the oath of purgation alone. With the decline of chivalry, the flourishing of the towns, the further development of Christian theology, and the formation of states, both social and cultural conditions had changed. The law of evidence, along with much of the rest of the law of Europe, was influenced strongly by Roman-canonical law elaborated by jurists in northern Italian universities. Roman law introduced elements of common procedure that became known throughout the continental European countries and became something of a uniting bond between them.
Under the new influence, evidence was, first of all, evaluated on a hierarchical basis. This accorded well with the assumption of scholastic philosophy that all the possibilities of life could be formally ordered through a system of a priori, abstract regulations. Since the law was based on the concept of the inequality of persons, not all persons were suitable as witnesses, and only the testimony of two or more suitable witnesses could supply proof.
The formal theory of evidence that grew out of this hierarchical evaluation left no option for the judge: in effect, he was required to be convinced after the designated number of witnesses had testified concordantly. A distinction was made between complete, half, and lesser portions of evidence, evading the problem posed by such a rigid system of evaluation. Since interrogation of witnesses was secret, abuses occurred on another level. These abuses were nourished by the notion that the confession was the best kind of evidence and that reliable confessions could be obtained by means of torture.
Despite these obvious drawbacks and limitations, through the ecclesiastical courts Roman-canonical law gained influence. It contributed much to the elimination of nonrational evidence from the courts, even though, given the formality of its application, it could result only in formal truths often not corresponding to reality.