How does a judge decide if evidence is admissible?

To be admissible in court, the evidence must be relevant (i.e., material and having probative value) and not outweighed by countervailing considerations (e.g., the evidence is unfairly prejudicial, confusing, a waste of time, privileged, or based on hearsay).

Why are judges refusing to look at evidence?

Rather, it’s that judges across the United States have refused to even look at the evidence, and have instead dismissed case after case based on legal technicalities. This argument really came into focus last Friday, when the US Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit from Texas Attorney-General Ken Paxton.

What happens at a preliminary hearing in a criminal case?

Preliminary Hearing – If a preliminary hearing is held, the judge hears evidence and testimony from witnesses called by the prosecuting attorney and the defendant’s attorney. If the judge determines there is enough evidence to believe the defendant probably committed the crime, the defendant is held for trial in

Who was the judge who set aside the trial judge’s finding?

“The trial judge’s finding… was unsupported by the evidence and must be set aside,” Justice Mary Newbury wrote in that ruling. Then last year, Justice John Savage raised issues with Justice Walker’s fact-finding, stating, “the evidence simply does not support this finding.” These decisions were all written by different judges in different cases.

What happens if there is no jury in a criminal case?

After all the evidence has been presented and the judge has explained the law related to the case to a jury, the jurors decide the facts in the case and render a verdict. If there is no jury, the judge makes a decision on the case.

Who was the judge who ignored the evidence?

The B.C. judge who ‘ignored evidence,’ ‘erred in law’ and put a ministry under fire. CKNW’s own Charmaine de Silva joins us to talk about Part 2 of her investigative series on BC’s Family Justice System.

Why are judges allowed to exclude relevant evidence?

Judges often exclude relevant evidence because of some other evidence rule. For example, evidence that is relevant may be likely to unfairly arouse the jury’s emotions. In such situations, the judge is supposed to balance the importance of the evidence against the risk of an unfair appeal to emotion.

Why is relevant evidence not admissible in court?

Relevance: Not the Whole Story. Evidence has to be relevant to have any chance of admissibility, but not all relevant evidence is admissible. Judges often exclude relevant evidence because of some other evidence rule. For example, evidence that is relevant may be likely to unfairly arouse the jury’s emotions.