Talk:Evidence (law)

message: looking something up quickly, notice there are some rather odd things going on in the actual article. Notably the last sense [sentence] of the section Authentication. I am sorry I have not got the time to go through the changes as the moment and find out what might have been removed and added. --  02:04, August 7, 2010‎ MithrandirAgain
:This comment was unsigned. I gave it attribution and time stamp, made a title and put "sentence" in brackets after "sense", which I believe was used in error. -- Kjkolb (talk) 07:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd things, especially last sentence in "Authentication" section

message: Why the hell is over a fourth of the article dedicated to this subject?  I took Evidence with one of the most famous law professors in the United States (his books are in nearly every public library in the nation) and this was not covered.  It is not part of the case law---yet---and has little relevance to how evidence law is actually applied at present in American litigation.  Also, this concept was not discussed in my BarBri course, and it was not covered on the bar exam.  I think this topic is interesting and should be mentioned, but I also feel it does not need to be explained in such detail.  This is an encyclopedia, not a law review! --Coolcaesar 06:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Overemphasis of relevance of Bayesian theorem to evidence law

message: I assume the "Federal Rules of Evidence" in the section on Hearsay refers to a U.S. code (e.g., is of interest to people wanting to know about evidence in U.S. law rather than common law more broadly), but I don't feel competent to change the statement to reflect this. Eric 18:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hearsay 

message: Perhaps the reason why Coolcaesar does not see the relevance of Bayesianism is his self-confessed (but proud) ignorance of Bayesianism?
Some law teachers hesitate to mention probability theory in class because they think their students are philistines in matters of mathematics and fear student retribution via student course evaluations. Such law teachers might cite Coolcaesar's comment as evidence that this fear is warranted.
&&&
One should consider that when any work (such as a treatise or an encyclopdeia entry) is in its incipiency some topics will get relatively more attention than they deserve (or will ultimately get). If such disparities were not permissible, how would one (or a community) ever get a book or an encyclopedia started? (Answer: It would not be possible.)
&&&
Bayesian logic is wily; it is a Trojan Horse. Scientific and expert evidence (e.g., genetics) is frequently admitted into courtrooms. Much of today's science (e.g., quantum theory, meteorology, weather forecasting, evolutionary biology, neuroscience, economics) has probabilistic components: probability theory is part and parcel of many of today's sciences. Some of the probability theory used in some sciences has a Bayesian flavor; i.e., some sciences now make use of conditional probabilities and likelihood ratios to update, or revise, the prior probabilities of hypotheses (or to extract likelihood ratios from "posterior" probabilities). Hence, even though many (but not all) lawyers and judges have a deep aversion to "trial by mathemctics," Bayesian logic is deep in the belly of some sciences and thus insinuates itself into the courtroom whether lawyers or judges are comfortable with mathematics or not. This is one reason why it might be important for law students to know a little bit about probability theory and Bayesian logic.
Another reason for putting the Rev. Thomas Bayes into law school courses about the law of evidence is the possibility that Bayesian logic reveals the fundamental structure (or part of the fundamental structure) of factual inference. The law of evidence can make no sense either in the classroom or in practice if it does not rest on some coherent view about how human beings use evidence to reach conclusions about the world.
&&&
Coolcaesar does not consider the possibility that law students and lawyers are not the only people who may want to know something about the law of evidence and proof of facts in litigation. Students of society and everyday citizens may want to know how legal mechanisms for resolving factual disagreements work or fail to work.
---
How about a) signing your contributions and b) reading WP:POL, especially WP:NOR and WP:NPA -- Jibal 01:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Question of the Proper Role of Bayesianism (Probability Theory) in the Law School Classroom 

message: As per user:GridEpsilon, who recently place the corresponding template, this article needs more sources. ie: The Laws of Evidence by a prof. Donald Po... at Ottawa U. (I forget his last name) or many other resources that are currently available. Merry Christmas and good luck! Here are a couple wiki regulations you may also want to take a look prior to adding more information to this article WP:OR, WP:V and WP:CITE --CyclePat 05:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also WP:POV -- this article reads like an essay, not an encyclopedia entry. -- Jibal 01:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More evidence (Sources and Bibliography) required for the Evidence page!  

message: This part seems to be missing.  Although TV law shows hardly provide "reliable source" there seems to be a case that if the defendant's party has not been made aware of a witness the prosecution wishes to call or an object they wish to use as an exhibit within due time (Period being what?) then the defense can ask for an adjournment or to have the evidence/exhibit dismissed.  If I didn't get that wrong then there should be s.th. about that in this article.  If it doesn't go here there should be some mention in Criminal proceedings.  Plse. verify and edit accordingly. THKS.  71.236.26.74 (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Disclosure

message: The redirect Incriminating evidence has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.   Jay 💬 06:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Incriminating evidence]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]