In any criminal case of importance, it is imperative that there is legally admissible evidence to convince the jury or judge that the suspect is guilty or innocent.
For evidence to be admissible, proceedings must have a tendency to prove or disprove a fact.
For evidence to occur, the party holding the evidence in front must be able to show that the source of the evidence makes it credible. For example, if the evidence is in the form of witness testimony, the party presenting the evidence must do the groundwork for the credibility and knowledge of the witness.
Given the importance of admissibility of evidence, experienced attorneys are aware that the issue of admissible evidence may have dominated the decision more than dramatic speeches, ad hoc statements of personal belief, or other attempts to send a judge.
The issue for justice in criminal cases and the importance of gathering relevant and reliable evidence is part of the legal claim to the burden of proof. The burden of proof is the obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to transfer the trust of the other party or a third party from their place of origin.
Collecting evidence is the way in which the burden of proof is established and the decision is made. There are two main ideas:
1) On whom is the proof rest?
2) To what extent can proof be supported?
Ways to collect evidence:
The evidence is to be gathered for the discovery of sufficient and reliable evidence to move the case in favor of the client. These methods of collecting evidence include:
Personal interrogation of suspects. Those seeking a guilty verdict serve to place the burden of proof on the defendant in obtaining the admission of a conviction that could eliminate the need for a trial. This is called born proof.
However, when defending a client, there is a high value in interrogating or questioning the rescuer to find evidence as quickly as possible. This is evidence that favors the defendants.
In most countries, interrogation methods are banned to ensure that suspects are not accepted through some misuse.
To validate the relevance and reliability of the given evidence, research the available facts given by the opposing lawyers. For the success of a case, it is often important for lawyers to prove irrelevant or unreliable evidence to the opposite side of the facts.
Theorize possible crime to direct the search. Without case theory, the search for relevant and reliable evidence is impossible.
Prioritize eyewitnesses such as eyewitnesses. At the same time, remember that eyewitnesses are human. Their credibility may be tainted in some circumstances, except for the impetus for perjury.
Obtain any necessary warrants or court documents to allow the investigation of written material, files, photographs, and other forensic recordings of the alleged crime. Then compare and contrast with your own evidence gathered to date.
As far as possible, rely on physical evidence for Criminal cases. This can be fingerprints, tire marks, hair, etc. Such evidence may be characterized as an exhibit in court and may be used for further reference at any time. This is considered direct evidence.
The question is indirect evidence that it is circumstantial in nature. Indirect evidence does not in itself prove a crime. Direct proof.