Evidence Law
Introduction
The practice of law is governed by the basic principle of law, logic, and evidence, without which justice is unattainable. Among such tools includes the hearsay doctrine, privilege communication, and best evidence rule. According to Kim and Taylor (2019), the hearsay rule dictates that out-of-courts statements like gossips, among other things written or spoken, should not constitute conviction of a person. However, like any law, it exhibits exceptionality, which we shall not delve on now. Also, the privileged communication argument outlines that conversation and statements made under special relationships cannot be coerced as evidence before any competent court of law. On the other end, the best evidence rule is primarily concerned with the presentation of original evidence before courts (Graham, 2018). The three documents are integral pillars in the development of evidence and, therefore, justice in the long run. As such, this paper attempts to provide a contextual legal application of each of them in different legal provinces, as discussed below.
To start with, the hearsay rule as a tenet of evidence law is vital in ensuring that no conviction or otherwise is committed based on the out- of -courts statements or conversation because such evidence is viewed as inadmissible (Kim &Taylor, 2019). For instance, when Luigi Cardone heard through the spread of rumors as told by Big Salvatore that the murder of Freddie Malone was executed by his wife Slippery Sally, Cardone’s testimony will not be admitted before any competent court of jurisdiction. Cardone’s statement will not hold water because the information comes from Big Salvatore, who was also told by Frankie about the murder. The evidence act, therefore, treats such an array of data as out- of -courts statement that cannot be substantiated and therefore, inadmissible. A typical example is Junga v R (1952) AC 480(PC). In this case, the police witness before the trial provided evidence uttering that they had been given the information by a police informer of the alleged intent of committing a criminal act. As a result, the accused was convicted based on such charges. However, upon appeal, the magistrate argued that admission of such hearsay was not warranted as it lacked the evidence of the intent to commit a felony. Therefore, the court accepted the appeal against the conviction of the accused because such out-of-court sentiments did not meet legality.
Also, privilege communication pertains to the conversational interactions made in individual circumstances, and that cannot be disclosed by a compulsion to serve as evidence before any competent court of law (Akhtar,2018). Such may include conversation between clients and attorneys, a patient and a doctor, a wife, and a husband, among others. This, however, is also faced with exceptionalities depending on various factors underplay within legal confines. Privilege communication protection ensures that private and personal information is only given with the explicit consent of the accused. In this case, the Tommy D’Natalia cannot testify under compulsion of any form as have subpoenaed by the SAC. This is because the relationship between Tommy and the CPA is a confidential one and that which is protected by the law as such. Taking the example in the case between Balabel v Air India, the judge stated privileges are not only limited between the solicitor and the accused but extend as well to the communication in the form of information in documents, which also contains professional details.
. On the contrary, Cardone’s interest in giving testimony on the murder of Freddie Malone by his wife Slippery Sally does not constitute the legal threshold of private communication. To acquire the privileged status, the disclosure must be made in a private setting. Such privilege or status is waived when such disclosure is given to the third party (Akhtar, 2018). Cardon’s testimony against Slippery Sally does not constitute to private communication threshold. This is because the information on the murder came through the spread of rumors. The Luigi Cardone gets the information on the killing of Freddie Malone through Big Salvatore, who got the same from Frankie. As a result, the information on the murder of Freddie Malone, having intrigued the third party, implies that such information is waived and no longer qualifies private or privileged communication.
Accordingly, the principle of best evidence rule reaffirms the need for original document or any other form as proof to its content. However, this does not imply that additional evidence cannot be used in a court of law. Only that there must be an emphasis on the originality of the actual content (Graham, 2018). If the court faces obstacles on gaining an insight into the evidence, it may need other forms of evidence or testimony to aid on the same. For instance, in the case of the murder of the store owner by Bertram Bertolio, D’Angelo and Livorno’s statement is permissible before a competent jurisprudence. This is because the two individuals who have been part of the heist are treated as the original evidence when other sources of the murder cannot be obtained. They can, therefore, provide first-hand information herein referred to as the initial evidence to aid in the testimony. However, the decision on the death penalty relies on the presentation of law, logic, and evidence to the jurists upon which justice can be served.
Conclusively, the significant position of evidence law in the justice system is crucial in the pursuit of justice and also necessary for its delivery. The rumor, privileged communication, and best evidence rules are critical tenets of the evidence law that distinct and yet interrelated aspects that assist in the interpretation and administration of judicial expeditions. By putting these aspects together to constitute the rule of evidence law, there is guaranteed safety and orderly legal environment that promotes efficiency and enhances the quality of evidence and therefore administration of justice