Direct vs Circumstantial Evidence
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 07. 2020
- This Evidence Law Capsule is an introductory capsule explaining the basic difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. It also looks at the need for jury instructions in cases involving circumstantial evidence, explaining the rationale of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R v Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33.
To learn more about the criminal law and evidence, check out my website: petersankoff.com
To be notified about new videos, Like my Facebook page: / professorsankoff
Or follow me on twitter: @petersankoff - Jak na to + styl
Every true crime journalist needs to watch this video. I swear, the term “circumstantial evidence” is abused in the media by being treated as synonymous with “weak evidence”. But circumstantial evidence can be far more powerful than direct eyewitness accounts.
Clear explanations and very useful. Thank you!
Thank you :)
Thank a lot.
Hello
Why is the translation not available? I hope the translation will be activated for the purpose of benefiting from the lectures.
A witness' testimony is not unimpeachable of course because they could be lying, hallucinating or have mistakenly thought it was raining....i.e. a film crew was shooting a scene and brought rain canons which the witness couldn't see form his window...but where the crime was committed (just beyond where the manufactured rain was falling) was not under rain. The best type pot direct evidence is photographic or video.
I have a question so Michelle Carter case would that be considered circumstantial evidence ??
Great videos! Would circumstantial evidence be if a doctor injected a drug that VISABLE atrophied all the skin and tissue in that area, that a "overdose of the drug" was given by the circumstantial evidence of the tangible injury and that is the a KNOWN side effect of the drug to cause atrophy ?
Hopefully you get an answer
@Carolina Girl Hmmm...so it sounds like what you're really trying to claim by, *"overdose of the drug"* is that the Doctor *"was negligent by giving you a dosage above what was required"* which caused the skin around the shot area to visibly atrophy.
In this case you would need proof that the drug actually has that side affect and the cause was from the negligence of the Doctor and not anything else. Otherwise simply claiming it would be treated as hearsay in court.
@Carolina Girl Here's a link of a New York attorney talking about circumstantial evidence for medical malpractice:
_Two Great Examples of Circumstantial Evidence; NY Medical Malpractice Attorney Oginski Explains_
czcams.com/video/4AStH5NLpMY/video.html
Circuses
Raining
Thank you :)