PowerPoint Slides (2nd Set)

PowerPoint Slides (2nd Set) - Best Evidence Rule The first...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–10. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Best Evidence Rule The first therefore, and most signal Rule, in relation to Evidence, is this, That a Man must have the utmost Evidence, the Nature of the Fact is capable of; For the Design of the Law is to come to rigid Demonstration in Matters of Right, and there can be no Demonstration of a Fact without the best Evidence that the Nature of the Thing is capable of; less Evidence doth create but Opinion and Surmise, and does not leave a Man the entire Satisfaction, that arises from Demonstration. Best Evidence Rule Does the evidence involve proof of the contents of a writing? If not, no best evidence problem. If so, is the original writing being offered? If so, no best evidence problem. If not, is a duplicate being offered? If so, no best evidence problem. If not an original or duplicate, is there a reason why the original is not being offered (e.g., lost, destroyed, beyond power of court, D replaced stairs D had control over stairs D owned or controlled building D had duty of care to P Evidenti al Fact Inferred Fact Inferred Fact Consequent ial Fact D replaced stairs D thought stairs were not sound Stairs were not sound D was negligent in not replacing sooner Evidenti al Fact Inferred Fact Inferred Fact Consequent ial Fact D changed design D could have used different design originally Alternative design was feasible Evidenti al Fact Inferred Fact Consequent ial Fact D changed design D thought product was unreasonabl y dangerous Product was unreasona bly dangerous Evidenti al Fact Inferred Fact Consequent ial Fact PDG had liability insuran ce PDG would not have to pay for acciden ts PDG was negligen t Evidenti al Fact Inferred Fact Consequenti al Fact PDG was more likely to be neglige nt Inferred Fact PDG has liability insuran ce PDG can afford to pay PDG should be held liable Evidenti al Fact Inferred Fact Consequenti al Fact PDGs insuranc e will cover this. D though t he was at fault D was at fault Evidenti al Fact Inferred Fact Consequent ial Fact PDGs insuranc e will cover this. PDG had liability insuran ce PDG would not have to pay for acciden ts PDG was negligen t Evidenti al Fact Inferred Fact Inferred Fact Consequenti al Fact PDG was more likely to be neglige nt Inferred Fact Deceitful Careless Violent Promiscuous Lecherous Committed fraud Was negligent Committed assault Consented to sex Committed rape David has been reckless in the past. David has been reckless in the past. Evidenti al Fact Consequen tial Fact David is reputed to be reckless. People say David is reckless Evidenti al Fact Inferred Fact David is reckles s Inferred Fact People believe David is reckles s Inferred Fact David is reckles s Consequen tial Fact David has been reckless in the past. David has been reckless in the past....
View Full Document

Page1 / 45

PowerPoint Slides (2nd Set) - Best Evidence Rule The first...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 10. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online