Evidence in a Criminal Trial




Evidence


Meaning of Evidence


In a criminal hearing, a judge will generally determine facts based solely on admissible evidence given through witnesses, physical exhibits, and admissions by the parties. The criminal procedure depends on the production of evidence by parties for transparency. It is not for the judge to search for evidence and it is irrelevant that other relevant materials may exist out there that were not adduced. To be considered as the best criminal lawyer in Brampton, we always do our best to flesh out and adduce all relevant evidence. Evidence provides a means of allowing facts to be proved for the purpose of deciding the issues. The judge may only consider evidence that is admissible, material and relevant. Even then, evidence that creates undue prejudice may nonetheless be ruled inadmissible. As a practicing criminal lawyer in Brampton, we challenge evidence to ensure its admissibility. The purpose of the rules of evidence are to permit the judge get at the truth. Admissibility is exclusively the responsibility of the judge while the findings of fact is exclusively the responsibility of the jury. For a judge to receive evidence, the judge must be satisfied that the evidence is: relevant, material, not barred by rules of admissibility, and not subject to discretionary exclusion. Once relevance and materiality is established, the evidence is admissible except where barred by an exclusionary rule. There are several ways that facts can be established. The predominant manner of establishing fact is through evidence. In fact, almost all manners of proof require some amount of evidence and the real distinction is the proximity of the evidence to the fact at issue.


Types of Evidence


Facts are established by: Direct Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence and Inferences, Legal Presumptions, Judicial Notice, Admissions of Fact Direct evidence is evidence that is put forward to directly establish a fact which resolves a matter at issue. No inferences of fact need to be drawn to resolve the matter at issue. As criminal lawyers in Brampton, we investigate all the potential relevant evidence. A first-hand eyewitness testifying to seeing a criminal offence take place is the most obvious example of direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence refers to any evidence from which one or more inferences are to be drawn to establish material facts. While there is no burden to prove every piece of evidence on a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to convict on a circumstantial case, a judge must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the only rational inference that can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence is one of guilt. Circumstantial evidence may be used to support the inference of innocence as well as guilt so long as the probative value outweighs prejudicial effect and it is not given undue weight. As a top criminal lawyer in Brampton, we always strive to be fully up to date on the rules of evidence.