Uan aa Boa wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:“Relevancy,” as it pertains to evidence, is the tendency of evidence to make an element of a crime more likely than not.
I find this unclear. You probably mean that evidence is relevant if it allows the court to form a clearer view of the likelihood that a crime was committed by the accused, but I'm not sure, and since the proposal also discussed rates of reoffending - which is the likelihood of crime in a different context - it has the potential to be ambiguous. I'm not sure what you mean by the "tendency of evidence" either. It makes it unclear whether the definition applies to the singular specific piece of evidence before the court or to a more general type or category of evidence.
"I am not sure I agree, but I am open to clarification, ambassador. Evidence is relevant if it makes the existence or nonexistence of an element of a crime more likely than not. Which is to say that testimonial evidence of the sky being blue has no bearing on whether somebody engaged in unprivileged physical conduct for an assault case."
Also, with the introduction of "more likely than not" are you suggesting that the requirement for evidence should be concerned with the balance of probabilities as opposed to reasonable doubt?
"Not at all, simply that evidence must actually go to prove the elements of a crime, even in a minute manner, to be relevant. The standard of proof remains beyond a reasonable doubt. Or whatever a nation uses for criminal cases, I suppose."
You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think member nations are required to employ trial by jury. If I'm right about that then mandatory clauses that have to apply to all nations should not assume the existence of a jury.
"You are correct, ambassador, nations are not required, but are heavily entreated, to use juries in criminal trials. However, I disagree that this assumes the presence of a jury. As noted before with the delegation from Araraukar, any motions in limne must take place outside the presence of a jury. If there is no jury, there is no risk that a motion in limne is in their presence. Since this does not require the use of a jury, any presupposition is harmless."