The study of law and the structure of the legal system The notion of relevance plays a central role in the search for legal facts. Thayer (1898:266, 530) articulates its importance in relation to two fundamental principles of the law of evidence: first, without exception, nothing irrelevant can be accepted as evidence by the court, and second, subject to numerous exceptions and limitations, what is relevant can be accepted by the court as evidence. Thayer`s views have been influential and find expression in legal sources, for example in Rule 402 of the Federal Rules of Evidence in the United States. [7] Thayer argues, and is now widely accepted, that relevance is a „logical“ rather than a legal concept; In section 2.1.3, we will examine this allegation and the contradiction expressed by Wigmore. In addition to the dissenting opinion for the time being, we will first look at possible conceptions of relevance in the traditional sense of logical relevance. In another epistemic interpretation, the evidence is sufficient to satisfy a standard of legal proof, and a determination of legal liability is permissible only if the factual intermediary can see the evidence of the defendant`s liability – specifically, the essential facts giving rise to such liability (Duff et al. 2007: 87-91; Pardo 2010; for a critical overview of knowledge-based accounts, see Gardiner forthcoming). A high probability of liability is not enough. For more subtle, knowledge-based theories, standards of proof are met only if, based on the available evidence, there is a sufficiently high probability that the investigator will know that the defendant is responsible (Littlejohn 2020 and 2021; Blome-Tillmann, 2017), or only if the belief in the defendant`s liability exceeds the relevant legal threshold and credibility represents knowledge (Moss, 2018). It is also argued that the relevant knowledge required to establish liability cannot be inferred solely from statistical evidence (Littlejohn, 2020 and 2021; Blome-Tillmann, 2017; Moss 2018 and soon). According to Thomson, this is because statistical evidence (to take our first example, 75% blue bus ownership) is not causally related to the fact to be proven and cannot guarantee the veracity of the relevant belief (that the bus that caused the accident was blue) (Thomson 1986). Another argument is that knowledge requires the exclusion of all relevant alternatives, and to take our prison scenario, there is no evidence to address the possibility that the accused was the one who did not participate in the attack, or the possibility that the defendant is less likely to be guilty than an arbitrary prisoner in the court.

(See Moss forthcoming; Moos 2018: 213. Gardiner 2019a adapts the framework of relevant alternatives to model standards of legal evidence in a non-mathematical way, while avoiding a knowledge report on these standards.) Another possible explanation for ignorance is based on the concept of sensitivity. The belief that the defendant is responsible is not sensitive to the truth if it is based on mere statistical evidence; In the example of buses, the evidence of the market share of buses remains the same whether or not it is true that a blue bus caused the accident (cf. Enoch, Spectre and Fisher 2012; Enoch and Fischer, 2015; Enoch and Spectre 2019 – while suggesting that lack of knowledge in general has to do with the insensitivity of faith, the authors deny that knowledge should matter for the imposition of legal liability). Another explanation is that it is not certain to find a responsible person based on simple statistical evidence. Although the security right is sometimes treated as a condition of knowledge (since knowledge requires true and certain belief), the security right may be treated as a condition for establishing the liability of the defendant without also taking the position that the conclusion must be based on knowledge of liability. Security is generally understood in terms of whether a belief formed on the same basis would be true in nearby possible worlds. Generally speaking, a statement of responsibility is uncertain when it can easily be false, in the sense that little needs to change in the real world for it to be false. Whether the safety requirement can explain why no verdict should be rendered against the defendant in our two hypothetical cases depends on whether it can easily happen that the bus causing the accident is red or that the defendant is innocent. (See Pritchard 2015 and 2018; Pardo 2018; cf. Gardiner 2020.) While the theorization of standards of proof in epistemic terms has gained momentum in recent years, it has been criticized for relying on unrealistic assumptions that do not care about the actual functioning of legal systems and make epistemological requirements impossible (Allen 2020).

The function of the federal courts that takes place at the beginning of criminal proceedings – after a person has been arrested and charged with a federal crime and before they appear in court. Pre-Investigation Service officials are focusing on investigating the background of these individuals in order to assist the court in deciding whether to release or detain them pending trial. The decision is based on the likelihood that these individuals will flee or pose a threat to the community. If the court orders release, a pre-trial officer supervises the person in the community until the person returns to court. Clear and persuasive evidence is a higher level of persuasion than „preponderance of evidence“ but less than „beyond a reasonable doubt“. It is used intrajudicially in administrative tribunal decisions as well as in civil and some criminal proceedings in the United States. For example, a prisoner seeking exemption from the death penalty in habeas corpus must prove his de facto innocence with clear and convincing evidence. [18] New York State uses this standard when a court must decide whether to involuntarily hospitalize a patient with mental illness or to issue an outpatient order.

[19] This standard has also been codified by the U.S. Supreme Court in all mental health civil liability cases. [20] Probative value, as well as relevance, have been explained using probability (for detailed examples, see Nance and Morris, 2002; Finkelstein and Levin, 2003). It has already been mentioned that the evidence is relevant or not and, depending on the prevailing interpretation, it is relevant as long as the probability ratio differs by 1:1. But the evidence can be more or less conclusive, depending on the value of the probability ratio. In our previous example, the weight of evidence for a blood type match was 1.0:0.5 (or 2:1), since 50% of the suspect population had the same blood type as the defendant. But suppose the blood type is less frequent and only 25% of the population suspects has it. The weight of evidence is now 1.0:0.25 (or 4:1). In both cases, the evidence is relevant; However, the probative value is greater in the latter scenario than in the former.

It is tempting to describe probative value as the degree of relevance, but that would be misleading, since relevance in law is a binary concept. Legal advice; A term that is also used to refer to lawyers in a case. Second, the term „evidence“ may refer to an assertion of fact supported by evidence in the original sense. [5] This is sometimes referred to as the „probationary fact“. The fact that the accused was at or near the scene of the crime at the relevant time is a second sense of his possible participation in the crime. But the presence of the accused must be proved by evidence in the first sense. For example, the prosecution may call a witness to court and have him testify that he saw the accused near the crime at the relevant time. The success of the evidence of the accused`s presence (the probationary fact) depends on how the investigator assesses the accuracy of the witness and the reliability of his or her testimony. (The investigator is the person or body responsible for determining where the truth lies in the disputed questions of fact and who has the authority to decide the judgment. The investigator is also called a „trier of fact“ or „trier of fact“.

Fact-finding is the responsibility of the jury or, for certain types of cases and in countries without a jury system, the judge.) Sometimes the evidence is directly accessible to the investigator. If the alleged knife used in the commission of the offence in question (a form of „authentic evidence“) is presented to the court, the investigator himself can see the shape of the knife; He does not need to know this through the testimony of an intermediary.