Identify and describe various types of evidence and draw a distinction between indirect and direct evidence
In the contemporary judicial practice there are several types of evidence, which include the following:
Real and Demonstrative Evidence
There are the tangible types of evidence presented in most cases. Real evidence essentially relates to core element presented in the litigation while demonstrative evidence essentially serves to illustrate, summarize and explain the main element offering it as evidence (Blond, 2007). For instance, in a murder case real evidence would be the weapon used while demonstrative evidence would be the chart presentation of the murder scene.
Oral or Testimonial Evidence
Oral evidence describes statements made by a witness especially when done under an oath in the presence on the factual element or finder that is meant to address the concerned dispute (Blond, 2007). Oral evidence is also described in some instances as testimonial evidence.
This is evidence which even after receiving significant credit or support from the fact finder still does not resolve the factual issue being presented (Blond,2007). Circumstantial evidence usually requires the fact finder to carry out competent inference on the presented evidence in order to reach a substantive conclusion on the dispute under question.
Direct evidence is evidence that has been credited by the fact finder hence this resolves the issue under question without necessarily requiring the fact finder to draw substantive inference (Blond, 2007). Common types of direct evidence include testimonies, material facts, physical hand writing, and admission.
Indirect evidence is evidence which has been credited as a factual entity only after significant inference being carried out upon it by the fact finder (Andrew and Adrian, 2005). Common types include hearsay, or circumstantial evidence. This type of evidence ordinarily takes significant time through involvement of critical forensic analysis in order to ascertain facts.
Describe relevant rules of evidence
According to Blond (2007), “Rules of evidence are standards that regulate how parties prove facts to a fact finder” (p.1). Under the contemporary legal system rules of evidence forms the basis of court decisions. The rules of evidence are meant to give provisions for admitting reliable and relevant disputes on the resulting disputes (Blond, 2007). The application of evidence in courts is well described in evidence law. Blond further admits that the Federal Rules of Evidence form the most influential and important source as seen in evidence law (Blond, 2007). The practical concepts implied in Federal Rules of Evidence are usually put to application in solving occurring criminal and civil cases. This is primarily because most states have adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence. However, there are states which derive their own rules of evidence using specific state statutes provided and other common law sources (Blond, 2007). These derived rules are commonly described as State Evidence Rules.
The Federal Rule Evidence are used to govern all the existing district courts found in the United States including bankruptcy cases and other legal proceedings, which have been held before US magistrates and judges (Blond, 2007). This has been relatively visible as seen in the most common cases decided under the current legal system. The federal rules of evidence are primarily aimed at promoting the principles of flexibility, fairness, judicial economy, and enable just outcomes (Blond, 2007). These principles are what have guided the practice of law in different contexts. However, there are cases when evidence is excluded when its real value becomes outweighed by occurrence of prejudice especially in criminal trials (Best, 2009).