Surname 1

Student’s name

Instructor

Course

Date

Law of Evidence

In criminal proceedings, prosecutors and plaintiffs can offer facts to justify their cases.

The prosecution has the duty of proving guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt, whereas the accused

may present proof to dispute the prosecution's argument. Each side ought to have the chance to

evaluate the other side's facts before litigation and react during or before trial to the presentation

of such proof. In criminal proceedings, the accused can move the court to exclude evidence

obtained by the prosecution in breach of their constitutional rights. The piece of evidence should

apply to the facts at issue before the court accepts it. Relevant evidence means proof that can

make the presence of some truth that results in the decision of the action more likely or less

likely than without evidence. Such proof has the power to affect the case's outcome. The

evidence must be tied directly to or linked to the issue before the court of law. However, there is

some evidence that is not admissible in a case. Therefore, an analysis of five instances where the

evidence is relevant will not be admitted will be discussed.

Exclusion of unfair evidence

Even if the testimony is admissible, it can be disqualified in some given cases, under

court powers of the common law, and, more often, under section 78 of the Police and Criminal

Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984). The exemption will almost always be linked to how the

evidence was acquired. The court might exclude proof under PACE 1984, s 78, by taking into

account all the factors, particularly situations where the evidence was collected unlawfully,
 Surname 2

inappropriately, or unfairly, the admissibility of evidence might harm the integrity of the

prosecutions, that it should not be admitted. This only relates to proof of the prosecution. Could

center the excluding evidence on the assertion that proof has been collected in situations where a

serious and severe violation of the Speed Codes of Practice has occurred. And if such

infringements occur, the exclusion would be requested only when the violation compromises the

trial's fairness. Must base the power of excluding must on relevant facts of this case and the

judge of the negative impact on the fairness of the proceedings. Below are some of the instances

where though the evidence is relevant, it will not be admitted;

Hearsay

Hearsay is described as an out-of-court declaration made in court and proves the validity

of the claimed fact.  These out-of-court declarations do not require being spoken words only, but

they might also involve records. The principle against hearsay was established to avoid rumors

from being used to accuse anyone. Testimony that is produced outside of the court to show the

facts of what happened is also exempt. For instance, if a witness says that some other witnesses

claimed that the perpetrator hit the victim with a weapon and the prosecution tries to use the

statement to prove that the defendant assaulted the victim, the evidence is called hearsay.

Nevertheless, the hearsay law has over forty distinct variations, such as the exception of the

dying declaration. Eg Teper v The Queen [1952) “AC 480 in which the bystander was heard to

say to someone, allegedly the accused, “Your place burning and you going away from the fire!”

from which the jury was expected to infer that the defendant was present at the scene, which he

had denied”(Law Commission)

Confusing and misleading

 Surname 3

Proof may be omitted where the jury is likely to be misled or confused, such as by trying

to distract them from intangible or side problems. There is some correlation between the risks of

misunderstanding the problems and misleading the jury. Courts sometimes cite both risks

without trying to make a difference between them. Instances of evidence that has been

considered contradictory and deceptive include research on developments in legal procedures

related to it, failure to prosecute other individuals, statements comprising vague legal terms, and

private arrangements among offenders purporting to allocate any enforced liability. A good

example of a case where this kind of evidence will not be admissible is “The United States v.

Eatherton, 519 F.2d 603, 611 (1st Cir. 1975) (upon proof that a weapon was used during a bank

robbery, court may permit introduction of that weapon or a weapon of a similar kind to show

identity), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 987” Mueller, (Christopher et al)

Unfairly Prejudicial

Evidence that provokes the anger of the jury without any correlation results being added

is also omitted. Generally, it means the degree to which the jury's feelings, such as sympathy,

prejudice, or animosity, are induced by facts, thus interacting with their opportunities to deliver

an unbiased verdict, whether the emotional effect is unfair. Emotionalism is rational if it is part

of the case and unjust if it is beyond the case facts. For instance, proof of child abuse is often

emotional; however, it relies on whether it is disproportionately emotional. The emotional

influence is an intrinsic part of the prosecution, whether the defendant is convicted of child

abuse. However, if the person is convicted of robbery, it is unfair to have the judge all revved up

about child abuse. Therefore, if the case follows this direction, then the evidence becomes

inadmissible in the court of law.

 Surname 4

A good example is a case O’Neill v Phillips. "Company law has developed seamlessly

from the law of partnership, which was treated by equity … as a contract of good faith. One of

the traditional roles of equity, as a separate jurisdiction, was to restrain the exercise of strict legal

rights in certain relationships in which it considered that this would be contrary to good faith …

Thus, unfairness may consist in a breach of the rules [on which it is agreed that the affairs of the

company should be conducted] or in using the rules in a manner which equity would regard as

contrary to good faith” (Berkahn, Matthew)

Character

Another reason as to why evidence in a case is admissible is character. Evidence is also

omitted to show that the defendant or the victim does have a particular trait of personality and

that the defendant behaved in accordance with that personal characteristics. An exception is if

the accused first presents character evidence. Character proof in civil litigation is not permissible

to show conduct. For instance, a defendant does not give friends' testimony (or his testimony)

that he is typically a very cautious driver as circumstantial proof that he was possibly driving

cautiously on the day of a crash and not in a negligent manner.

Secondary Evidence

Secondary evidence is good evidence, but it is not admissible evidence. The secondary

proof is proof replicated or replicated for an original object or from an actual text. A photocopy

of a text or picture, for instance, may be deemed to be secondary proof. The exact duplicate of an

engine part found in a car would be another example. Suppose the motor car engine components

are not the same engine components inside the car involved in the case inside the motor vehicle.
 Surname 5

In that case, it is essentially referred to as secondary evidence. Therefore, if the replica is not the

same as the original item, then the evidence will not be admissible in a court of law.

Conclusion

Prosecutors and plaintiffs may present evidence in criminal trials to support their claims.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, the prosecutor is responsible for proving guilt, while the accused

can provide evidence to refute the prosecution's claim. Before litigation, each side should have

the opportunity to assess the other side's facts and respond to the introduction of such evidence

during or before trial. The accused can move the court in criminal proceedings to exclude

evidence obtained by the prosecution in violation of their constitutional rights.

 Surname 6

Work Cited

Berkahn, Matthew. "Unfair Prejudice: Who has it right, economically speaking?" Journal of the

Australasian Law Teachers Association.

Mueller, Christopher et al. Scholarship.Law.Gwu.Edu, 2018,

https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2636&context=faculty_publications

Law Commission, London (United Kingdom). Criminal law Evidence in criminal proceedings;

hearsay and related topics. London: HMSO, 1995.