Australian Uniform Evidence Law

Now in its second edition, Australian Uniform Evidence Law provides a clear, accessible introduction to the law of evidence. Following the structure of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), the text introduces students to basic principles, then covers more complex elements of evidence law. Cases and excerpts from legislation have been selected to guide students through the application of the Act. This edition has been updated to include significant recent case examples and decisions. Each chapter includes a summary of key points, definitions and practice questions to encourage students to apply their knowledge to realistic scenarios. The final chapter comprises longer-form, complex problems designed to test students' understanding of the concepts and rules covered in the Act as a whole. Guided solutions to each question are provided so students can check their understanding. Providing clear explanations and examples, Australian Uniform Evidence Law is an essential resource for all students of evidence law.

Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law

Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law presents a cross-disciplinary overview of the core issues in the theory and methodology of adjudicative evidence and factfinding, assembling the major philosophical and interdisciplinary insights that define evidence theory, as related to law, in a single book. The volume presents contemporary debates on truth, knowledge, rational beliefs, proof, argumentation, explanation, coherence, probability, economics, psychology, bias, gender, and race. It covers different theoretical approaches to legal evidence, including the Bayesian approach, scenario theory, and inference to the best explanation. The volume’s contributions come from scholars spread across three continents and twelve different countries, whose common interest is evidence theory as related to law.

The Naturalized Epistemology Approach to Evidence

Studying evidence law as part of naturalized epistemology means using the tools and results of the sciences to evaluate evidence rules based on the accuracy of the verdicts they are likely to produce. This chapter introduces the approach and addresses skeptical concerns about the value of systematic empirical research for evidence scholarship, focusing, in particular, on worries about the external validity of jury simulation studies. Finally, turning to applications, it discusses possible reforms regarding eyewitness identifications and character evidence.

Integrative doctrine of evidence-based law.

The article on the basis of integrative analysis of the problems of evidence in various legal processes substantiates the conclusion about the need to establish an integrative doctrine of evidence law and adopt a universal legislative act - the «Code of Evidence Law». The implementation of the rule of law in the field of justice is possible only if there is a fundamental doctrine of evidence-based law and a perfect evidentiary law created on its basis. In the context of the formation of its doctrinal principles and individual legal institutions, we propose to enshrine here the following provisions: Actual data obtained through the implementation of operational and search actions, anti-corruption measures, activities to prevent the legalization of proceeds from crime, customs and other administrative or civil procedure procedures stipulated by law can be used in criminal procedure and other legal evidence, provided that the source and method of their receipt can be verified. In admissive are the evidence obtained from such sources, such means and in such a manner, in which the proper observance of the protection of human rights and freedoms in accordance with the requirements of the rule of law and the principle of proportionality is not ensured, and the authenticity of the evidence itself is questioned. In legislation of Ukraine proposes to consolidate the following provisions: «Evidence materials obtained as a result of provocation of a crime obtained with significant violation of human rights and freedoms are inadmissible, whether «the fruits of a poisonous tree, materials obtained in violation of other legal norms, the prescriptions of which created certain guarantees of obtaining reliable factual data. Inadmissible are the evidence obtained from such sources, such means and in such a manner, in which the proper observance of the protection of human rights and freedoms is not ensured in accordance with the requirements of the rule of law and the principle of proportionality, as well as question the authenticity of the evidence itself. The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt means that the system of admissible and reliable evidence excludes any other reasonable explanation of the event that is the subject of trial, in addition to the one that is formed in the court decision.

Evidence Law and Empirical Psychology

Empirical psychology is a natural fit for understanding the law of evidence but is also substantially at odds with it. Since the early twentieth century, researchers have begun applying the insights from experimental psychology to various aspects of courtroom adjudication, including the assumptions underlying the Federal Rules of Evidence and the effects of the rules on litigants and the public. At the same time, the law has struggled with whether and how to incorporate insights from an academic discipline that embodies goals and methodologies that are, in many ways, dramatically different from its own. This chapter unfolds a brief historical account of the relationship between empirical psychology and the law of evidence, specifies the major contributions that psychologists have made to our understanding of evidence law, highlights recent, cutting-edge research, and makes several suggestions for how future research can assist in maintaining the relevance of psychology to sound evidentiary policy.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Evidence Law and Factfinding

Utility considerations have been central to legal factfinding, at least since the days of Jeremy Bentham, the founding father of utilitarianism and a prominent evidence law theorist. A direct line can be drawn from Bentham’s “principle of utility” to cost-benefit analysis (CBA) so it would seem only natural that the realms of evidence law and judicial factfinding would harbor this type of reasoning. However, when legal scholarship began to incorporate economic reasoning and to address issues from a CBA perspective, evidence law and the practice of judicial factfinding remained very much out of the picture. The object of this chapter is to highlight the prospects for integrating CBA into contemporary evidentiary policy and institutions, and to draw the general contours of the evolving scholarship in these fields of research. It describes and analyzes two economically driven models of evidence and proof: the cost-minimization model, geared toward minimization of the cost of errors and the cost of accuracy as a total sum, and the primary behavior model aiming to incentivize socially optimal behavior and interactions. This analysis identifies the models’ difficulties, engendered, for the most part, by the misalignment between the private and the social costs and benefits of adjudication, and addresses the models’ relationship to the existing evidentiary rules and institutions.

The Truth from the Standpoint of the Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics

Аccording to the «principles» of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, the existing state of the system cannot completely determine its future state, and accordingly, even in the absence of false information, it is impossible to restore the picture of the previous state. Newton’s physics and formal logic recognize only two results of any study “proved” or “not proved”, although there are four “likely”, “unlikely”, “uncertain”, “meaningless” and on this gnoseology basis it is proposed to build the institution of evidence law.