Evidence in a Court of Law

First off, I keep being told by folks here that I am wrong for hyperbolic actions. I am going to attempt to explain the idea of presentment of evidence in a court of law.

To start out, I am NOT an attorney, I am NOT a judge, I am a citizen.

First off, evidence is anything that proves a point. Remember this, it is an important component of any presentment of evidence.

This is also relevant in discussions or arguments. Tell me, when you are arguing a situation, it does not matter what, if someone does not dispute the presentment, should it be considered factual? Of course not, the problem is though, if no argument or counter evidence is presented, in the court of law, the evidence is considered to be factual.

This here is the component I am referring to. Tell me, have you heard of the idea of the jurisdictional relationship of a court? What this basically means, is does the court that is prosecuting the crime have the jurisdiction to judge the criminal case.

I do not want to give a big huge lecture on jurisdiction and precedent, but I am attempting to show you a rule of law.

Let me put it this way, in the rule of law, if someone presents a piece of evidence and the opponent does NOT dispute that evidence, that evidence is then considered to be factual. One has to dispute EVERY piece of evidence or you are accepting it as truth.

So, let us just take a standard case of speeding. An officer pulls over someone that was clocked by a radar system as over the speed limit. That is all the evidence we have. Where do we go from here.

First-Did the officer even have the jurisdiction to run his radar?
Second-Did the officer have the jursidiction to confront the citizen if he knew the equipment he used has a error ratio of say 5%?
3rd-Did the officer have probable cause that a criminal offense has occurred if he looked at the radar system and knew that the statistical probability that the equipment could be say 5% incorrect?

I could go on, but the last thing I would ask you, does the PROSECUTOR of the District Attorney have the legitimate authority or jurisdiction to place the charge?

Remember, they want you to agree to their jurisdiction. Do they?

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


It is really obvious that you are not either a lawyer or a judge. First, you speak of jurisdiction as if it were one idea or precept. Anyone who really knew what they were talking about would know that there are multiple parts to the jurisdiction precept. You have to answer: 1.) Is there subject matter jurisdiction? Can a municipal court try a murder case? No. Can the Supreme Court try a speeding case? No. 2.) Is there in personam jurisdiction? Has the person in court been served with a proper summons or indictment or information? Was he/she served within the geographic limits of the court's jurisdiction? 3.) In the appropriate cases, does the court have in rem jurisdiction? If it's a forfeiture action, have the necessary predicates been alleged. And lack of jurisdiction is a preliminary matter that is an affirmative defense where the burden of proof lies with the party asserting the lack of jurisdiction. And jurisdiction has nothing to do with the admission of something into evidence. Something is admitted into evidence if it is relevant, that is, if it makes a material fact more or less likely. For example, testimony that a speed limit sign was made by an alien from Pleides would not be admitted into evidence, even if true, because the location of manufacture of the sign is not material to the issues of whether a limit was posted and whether the defendant exceeded the limit. And even some relevant evidence can be excluded. For instance, a confession to murder is most definitely relevant, but if it was gained by torture, it will be excluded. Most hearsay is excluded because of both its unreliability and the unavailability of the declarant to be cross-examined as required by the confrontation clause of the Constitution.

reply to post by 4nsicphd


Star for you! You just saved me several minutes of typing.

reply to post by 4nsicphd


Okay, I did not present the evidence of this thread correctly.

You went into the ideas or the factual components of the argument properly, but you did not dissect my OP correctly.

You pretty much used the scattershot technique. You attacked my character instead of what I presented.

Yes, you had valid points, but they were not presented against my points directly.

Try again.

Just to add, as I said, I am not a lawyer or a judge.

I am wondering if the peeps that are attacking my OP here, are lawyers or judges. Hmmmm?

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

Remember, they want you to agree to their jurisdiction. Do they?

I am really not sure what you are getting at because you are a bit all over the place. The DA is who decides if one will be prosecuted....and it is prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the crime took place. However, a judge can say that a trial takes place in another jurisdiction if there are issues with say the jury pool (as example).

I really am not sure what you are getting at here.
You are attempting to discuss three different things: jurisdiction, evidence and probable cause. But Im not sure what it is you are saying or wanting to know.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


There is two types of jurisdiction is there not?

There is physical and there is the component or type of law. You have criminal, you have civil, you have tax, you have like 5 different types of law. This is what I was talking about the jurisdiction, not just the component of the physical.

Yes, the first commenter, attempted to belittle my OP, it was just presented as a mishmash of components.

The ending of the comment was this-

Something is admitted into evidence if it is relevant, that is, if it makes a material fact more or less likely. For example, testimony that a speed limit sign was made by an alien from Pleides would not be admitted into evidence, even if true, because the location of manufacture of the sign is not material to the issues of whether a limit was posted and whether the defendant exceeded the limit. And even some relevant evidence can be excluded. For instance, a confession to murder is most definitely relevant, but if it was gained by torture, it will be excluded. Most hearsay is excluded because of both its unreliability and the unavailability of the declarant to be cross-examined as required by the confrontation clause of the Constitution.

So, it was pretty much just a slam for attention. Nothing productive.

I was attempting to begin a conversation on law. I guess the ability to subvert the law has been demonstrated here. I did have a mishmash of components, but this comment was even more of a mishmash of supposed law.

reply to post by 4nsicphd


Question, are you a lawyer or judge? Well?

When it comes to American jurisprudence you should always start with the Constitution and work your way up from there...Otherwise, it's a mess.

reply to post by projectvxn


That is what I attempt to do. I always attempt to understand what type of law I am governed under.

Traffic law is different than criminal, civil is different than tax, etc etc etc.

Funny how it has all been specailized. Almost like they did not want people to be able to UNDERSTAND the law.

Which pretty much eliminates the precedent of ignorance of the law is no excuse. If the SCOTUS cannot recreate the 600k+ statutes there are in a month period, why is it that the ignorance of the law component is still relevant?

Sorry, I will go to a jury trial for now on. I have been in two jury trials in my life, both times we found them NOT GUILTY!

How bout them Apples? It was ALWAYS about what the jury thought, not what the judge or the prosecutor thought.

Soooooooooooooooooo, by the way, kiss my arse prosecutors and officers of the court!

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by 4nsicphd

 

Question, are you a lawyer or judge? Well?

Right now I am neither. I am the Forensics Director of an aviation forensics firm and an assistant coroner for a rural region in Kentucky. But I do have a Doctorate in Law.

reply to post by 4nsicphd


Well GOSH DARNIT teach me!

And I AM NOT KIDDING!

I have spent the last two years learning everything I can about political and law.