메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류
인문학
인문학 일반 역사학 철학 종교학 어문학 기타 인문학
사회과학
사회과학 일반 경영학 관광학 교육학 군사학 문헌정보학 법학 사회학 신문방송학 심리과학 정치외교학 지리학 행정학 경제학 무역학 인류학 기타 사회과학
자연과학
자연과학 일반 물리학 생물학 생활과학 수학·통계학 천문학 지구과학 화학 기타 자연과학
공학
공학 일반 건축공학 기계공학 산업공학 재료·에너지공학 전기전자공학 조선해양공학 화학공학 컴퓨터학 기타공학
의약학
의학 일반 간호학 수의학 약학 한의학 기초의학 임상의학 기타 의약학
농수해양학
농수해양학 일반 농학 수산학 식품과학 임학 축산학 해상운송학 기타 농수해양학
예술체육학
예술 일반 디자인 미술 미용 사진 음악학 의상 체육 공연매체예술 기타 예술체육학
복합학
학제간연구 과학기술학 뇌인지과학 기술정책 기타 복합학

ENG

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
원광대학교 법학연구소 원광법학 원광법학 제26권 제1호
발행연도
2010.1
수록면
249 - 271 (23page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
In litigating family law cases before a jury, Anglo-American common law limits the evidence which is presentable to a jury. This procedural limitation derives from the desire to prevent the jury, which is composed of lay persons, of reaching an erroneous finding which is not based on the evidence presented. One of these evidentiary limitations is the concept of materiality. Materiality means that the evidence establishes or negates a substantive element of the law that is applicable in the lawsuit before the court. Accordingly, the judge will exclude evidence that is not material prior to its submission to the jury. Another evidentiary limitation that has developed in the common law is relevancy. This concept holds that only evidence that is probative, i.e. evidence that has an influence on the finding of facts which actually affects the outcome of the trial. A judge will exclude evidence according to this principle when the evidence has no influence on the outcome. These two principles of the common law were codified in the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975 in order to ensure the impartiality and integrity of the judicial system. However, the two principles were combined into the single concept of relevancy. In other words, Section 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that “relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Scholars have described the section 401 relevancy requirement as a “natural relevancy” or “logical relevancy.”Additionally, section 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence authorizes a judge to exclude relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time, and although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence, and, therefore, this rule is described as “legal relevancy” or “pragmatic relevancy.”Thus, the requirements for the submission of evidence that is either natural relevant or legal relevant to a jury should use relevant criteria. These requirements are generally applied loosely, but find clarification in the criteria used by the Court in admitting the evidence and in the rationale put forth in the objection by the party opposed to the admission of such evidence. Our legal system contains a possibility that a trial becomes substantially coarse due to this situation. There are also worries that the evidence offer rights and evidence objection rights are too perfunctory from the standpoint of the person concerned and can result in distrust of the judicial system by the common people. Accordingly, parties request evidence, and if a court judges and treats according to a relevancy criterion in a procedure that chooses the evidence,the person concerned tries to raise objections on preclusion or admissibility in order to get a guarantee of predictability on the lawfulness and appropriateness and, therefore, can substantially secure proof rights. If we introduce a relevancy concept separate from our concept of the admissibility of evidence, we can clarify the basis of this concept of admissibility of evidence as well as integrally understanding the regulations on the exclusion and admissibility of evidence that cannot be explained only with the admissibility of evidence and credibility. Thus we can attain logical reasoning in the law of evidence.
#증거결정 #필요성 #미국연방증거규칙 #증거배제 #관련성 #Ruling Procedure of Evidence #Necessity #Federal Rules of Evidence #Exclusion of Evidence #Relevancy

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (16)

참고문헌 신청
Graham / 1977 / The Relationship Among Federal Rules of Evidence 607, 801(d)(1)(A) and 403: A Reply to Weinstein's evidence, 55 Tex. L. Rev. 573 (1977) google schola Kenneth S. Broun / 2006 / McCormick on Evidence google schola Mueller / 2009 / EVIDENCE (4th ed. 2009) google schola Travers / 1977 / An Essay on the Determination of Relevancy Under the Federal Rules of Evidence / Ariz. St. L.J 327 google schola Weinstein / 1969 / Basic Rules of Relevancy in the Proposed Rules of Evidence / Ga. L. Rev 4 : 43 ~ google schola

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0