Evidence: Validation Of Evidence
Evidence is a legal term. It is the information presented in testimony or in documents that is used to persuade the fact finder (judge or jury) to decide the case in favour of one side or the other. Moreover, it is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition or an allegation is true or valid.
In a court of law the evidence may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. To get to the truth, judges require unblemished evidence. Evidences that are not weak,
distorted or fabricated. One example of an unacceptable evidence is a hearsay testimony.
Indeed a hearsay is the evidence presented by a witness who did not see or hear the incident in question but heard about it from someone else. With some exceptions, hearsay generally is not admissible as evidence at a trial because it is not a valid evidence.
In the worst case scenario when the evidence is fabricated, judges have no other choice but to impeach the perpetrators. The impeachment is the process of calling a witness's testimony into doubt. For instance, if the solicitors or lawyers can demonstrate that the witness has fabricated portions of the evidence, the witness will be impeached.
A true or valid evidence will exhibit the following:
What has happened without adding anything to it.
How it has happened as it was.
Who were involved.
When it has happened.
Where it has happened.
Show that the defendant has clearly done what he was
Contrary to the valid evidences, false evidences include fabricated ones and useless evidences.
One example of useless evidences would be a video showing a black person giving to white woman at the bottom a lift an envelope. On another occasion, the same black guy
was seen giving an envelope to that woman in a train station. No one knows what was inside the envelope and no one wanted to know the connection between the two. The poor man is now pursuit by the undercover police officers who for drug dealing.
One may say that was a lousy evidence that would be dismissed in a court of law.
An example of a fabricated evidence would be a group of undercover officers that try to convict an innocent person of soliciting prostitution. In this case, they arrange for a beautiful girl to stand in the middle of a pavement as the man was walking by. They then took a picture that looked like the man was soliciting a prostitute in the middle of the night.
Indeed good judges often resist weak or fabricated evidences.
To avoid misleading judges or juries, it is imperative to prioritise truth finding instead of seeking conviction at all cost. One should always seek to know whether the defender has truly done what he was accused of by discarding blemished or invalid evidences. It is also crucial that law enforcement agencies or prosecutors do not make what looks like as if it is.
One should stay clear from the following: it looks likes, it appears as, it sounds like and so on.
True evidences often speak for themselves. To accuse or pursuit someone for drug dealing, there should be a clear proof that drug supply has taken place. Was there a drug? Have you seen a drug,
have you verified that there was a drug, did you think or assume that there was a drug?
If it looks suspicious, one must now verify whether there is any substance to support the allegation. There is a big difference between an allegation and truth. One should not react like headless chicken when investigating an allegation. Surely, the truth will set both the plaintiff and defendant free. At this juncture, it is now clear that valid evidence is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. What one tries to add to what has really happened is from the devil.