This diagram shows a way to decide what evidence you can use to prove a fact. The term “declaration of death” means any written or oral statement of the relevant facts of a deceased person or the statement of a deceased person explaining the circumstances of his or her death. A major difficulty with the two mathematical concepts of probative value just discussed is that, for most proofs, it is difficult to obtain the numbers needed to calculate the probability ratio (Allen 1991: 380). Exceptionally, there is quantitative data on baseline levels, as in our blood type example. When objective data are not available, the interviewer must rely on experience and basic knowledge to determine subjective values. In our blood type example, a critical factor in calculating the probability ratio was the percentage of the “suspect population” that had the same blood type as the accused. “Reference class” is the general statistical term for the role played by the suspect population in this analysis. How to define the reference class of the “suspect population”? Should we consider the population of the country as a whole or the city or street where the alleged murder took place? What if this happened at an international airport where most people are foreign visitors? Or what if it is proven that the accused and the victim were detained in the same prison at the time of the alleged murder? Should we then take the prison population as a reference class? The distribution of blood groups may vary depending on the reference class chosen. Skeptics of mathematical modelling of probative value point out that data from different reference classes have different explanatory power and that the choice of reference class is open to contextual arguments and should be subject to contextual arguments and requires judgment; There is no a priori way to determine the correct reference class. (On the problem of the reference class in the legal determination of facts, see, in addition to the references cited in the remainder of this section, Colyvan, Regan and Ferson, 2001; Trollers, 2005; Allen and Roberts, 2007.) Sixth, research in experimental psychology suggests that investigators do not evaluate evidence individually and in the unidirectional manner required by the mathematical model (Amaya 2015: 114-5). Instead, a holistic approach is pursued, in which discrete evidence is integrated into large cognitive structures (distinct as “mental models,” “stories,” “narratives,” and “theories of the case”) and evaluated globally against the legal definition of the crime or civil suit at issue (Pennington and Hastie, 1991, 1993; Pardo, 2000). Reasoning does not move linearly from reasoning to conclusion; It is bidirectional, forward and backward: since the investigator`s review of the evidence tends to make a particular judgment, his inclination towards this conclusion will often lead to a revision of his initial perception and evaluation of the evidence (Simon 2004, 2011). Evidence of a confession may be excluded because it was obtained through repression or because the confession was made as a result of something that was said or done to the accused that could make the confession unreliable.

In these circumstances, the trial judge would be free to exclude the evidence of the confession under section 78(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) or section 73 of PACE or the common law, although in practice confessions are excluded under section 76 of PACE. [7] The law of evidence is not only a fundamental principle of the evidentiary procedure, but also has a multidimensional purpose of regulating the rules governing the procedure of evidence in judicial proceedings. While its moral dimension is a particular asset in criminal trials, as it seeks to protect the innocent person and highlight the guilty person in order to practice full and fair justice. On the other hand, the rules of evidence also have the ability to hide the truth and prevent it from becoming public knowledge in order to protect the public interest of the masses. Each case leads to a decision on what Schauner calls the “exit.” What concerns him is “entry” – the world of facts. From criminal courts to the appellate system to the final arbiter, the Supreme Court, decisions are based on the “seemingly mundane factual questions that encompass most of what [judges and jurors] do: who did what; and how, why and when they did it. for example, in writing or by signs; But these writings must be written and the signs must be made in public court.