| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/abstract
|
증거능력(證據能力)은 형사소송법상 증거가 엄격한 증명의 자료로 이용될 수 있 … 증거능력(證據能力)은 형사소송법상 증거가 엄격한 증명의 자료로 이용될 수 있는 법률상의 자격이다. 즉, 공소 범죄사실 등 주요사실을 인정하는 자료로 사용할 수 있는 법률상의 객관적인 자격을 의미한다. 반면 민사소송법에서는 유형물이 증거방법으로서 증거조사의 대상이 될 수 있는 자격을 말하는 것으로, 민사소송에서는 모든 증거방법은 원칙적으로 증거능력이 있다. 증거의 증거능력 유무는 법률에 따라서 판단된다. 증거능력이 없는 증거는 사실인정의 자료로서 인정받지 못하고, 공판정에서 증거로서의 제출도 불허된다. 이는 증거능력이 없는 증거에 대한 증거조사를 허용하면 법관의 형성에 부당한 영향을 줄 가능성이 있기 때문이다. 증거능력은 증거로서의 자격 유무, 즉 증거의 허용성에 관한 문제이므로, 증거의 실질적 가치를 의미하는 증명력과 구별된다. 따라서 임의성이 없는 자백, 반대신문권을 행사할 수 없는 전문증거, 당해 사건의 공소장 등은 증거능력이 없다고 인정된다.할 수 없는 전문증거, 당해 사건의 공소장 등은 증거능력이 없다고 인정된다.
, Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is … Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a judge or jury—to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and "not excluded by the rules of evidence", which generally means that it must not be unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability. The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible, though some countries (such as the United States and, to an extent, Australia) proscribe the prosecution from exploiting evidence obtained in violation of constitutional law, thereby rendering relevant evidence inadmissible. This rule of evidence is called the exclusionary rule. In the United States this was effectuated federally in 1914 under the Supreme Court case Weeks v. United States and incorporated against the states in 1961 in the case Mapp v. Ohio, both of which involving law enforcement conducting warrantless searches of the petitioners' homes, with incriminating evidence being described inside them.ting evidence being described inside them.
, Bukti yang dapat diterima (bahasa Inggris: … Bukti yang dapat diterima (bahasa Inggris: admissible evidence) di pengadilan adalah setiap kesaksian, , atau nyata yang dapat diajukan kepada — biasanya seorang hakim atau juri — untuk menetapkan atau mendukung poin yang diajukan oleh sebuah pihak dalam proses persidangan. Agar bukti dapat diterima, bukti itu harus dan "tidak dikecualikan oleh aturan pembuktian", yang secara umum berarti bahwa bukti itu tidak boleh secara tidak adil, dan harus memiliki indikasi yang dapat dipercaya. Aturan umum dalam pembuktian adalah bahwa semua bukti yang relevan dapat diterima dan semua bukti yang tidak relevan tidak dapat diterima, meskipun beberapa negara (seperti Amerika Serikat dan, sampai batas tertentu, ) melarang penuntutan untuk mengeksploitasi bukti yang hukum konstitusional, dengan demikian membuat bukti yang relevan tidak dapat diterima. ini disebut aturan eksklusif . Di Amerika Serikat, aturan ini diberlakukan pada tingkat federal pada tahun 1914 di Mahkamah Agung melalui perkara Weeks v. Amerika Serikat dan diajukan melawan negara bagian pada tahun 1961 dalam perkara , kedua perkara ini melibatkan penegak hukum yang melakukan surat perintah di rumah para pemohon, dengan bukti yang memberatkan dijelaskan di dalamnya.i yang memberatkan dijelaskan di dalamnya.
, Beweisverbote stellen rechtsstaatliche Sch … Beweisverbote stellen rechtsstaatliche Schranken dar, die der Gewinnung und der Verwertung von Beweisen gesetzt sind. Solche Verbote existieren in zahlreichen Verfahrensordnungen. Sie dienen in erster Linie dem Schutz der Verfahrensrechte der Parteien. Eine besondere Bedeutung besitzen Beweisverbote im Strafprozess. Das Strafverfahren ist zwar auf die Ermittlung der objektiv-materiellen Wahrheit angelegt und es findet kein Parteienprozess statt, in dem es etwa, wie im Zivilprozess oder in den USA auch in Strafprozessen, auf die prozessuale Wahrheit ankommt. Jedoch will die deutsche Strafprozessordnung (StPO), wie auch die Regelungen anderer Rechtsstaaten, nicht die Wahrheit um jeden Preis erforschen. Im deutschen Strafprozessrecht wird zwischen Beweiserhebungsverboten und Beweisverwertungsverboten unterschieden.d Beweisverwertungsverboten unterschieden.
|
| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/wikiPageID
|
2094883
|
| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/wikiPageLength
|
4401
|
| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/wikiPageRevisionID
|
1095756184
|
| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/wikiPageWikiLink
|
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Law +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Witness +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Hearsay +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Evidence_law +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/False_evidence +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Prosecution +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Chain_of_custody +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Daubert_v._Merrell_Dow_Pharmaceuticals%2C_Inc. +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Law_of_evidence +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Mapp_v._Ohio +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Documentary_evidence +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Constitutional_law +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Law_of_the_United_States +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Australian_legal_system +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Evidence_%28law%29 +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Court +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Warrantless_searches_in_the_United_States +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Testimony +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Lay_a_foundation +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Kumho_Tire_Co.%2C_Ltd._v._Carmichael +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Exclusionary_rule +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Jury +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Trier_of_fact +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Judge +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Weeks_v._United_States +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Prejudice_%28legal_term%29 +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Relevance_%28law%29 +
|
| http://dbpedia.org/property/wikiPageUsesTemplate
|
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Globalize +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Reflist +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Evidence_law +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Short_description +
|
| http://purl.org/dc/terms/subject
|
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Evidence_law +
|
| http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasDerivedFrom
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admissible_evidence?oldid=1095756184&ns=0 +
|
| http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/isPrimaryTopicOf
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admissible_evidence +
|
| owl:sameAs |
http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q852633 +
, http://id.dbpedia.org/resource/Bukti_yang_dapat_diterima +
, http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/m.06lsj1 +
, http://de.dbpedia.org/resource/Beweisverbot +
, http://ko.dbpedia.org/resource/%EC%A6%9D%EA%B1%B0%EB%8A%A5%EB%A0%A5 +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Admissible_evidence +
, https://global.dbpedia.org/id/51V5g +
|
| rdfs:comment |
Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is … Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a judge or jury—to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and "not excluded by the rules of evidence", which generally means that it must not be unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability. The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible, though some countries (such as the United States and, to an extent, Australia) proscribe the prosecution from exploiting evidence obtained in violation of constitutional law, thereby rendering relevant evidence inadmissible. This rule of evidenevidence inadmissible. This rule of eviden
, Bukti yang dapat diterima (bahasa Inggris: … Bukti yang dapat diterima (bahasa Inggris: admissible evidence) di pengadilan adalah setiap kesaksian, , atau nyata yang dapat diajukan kepada — biasanya seorang hakim atau juri — untuk menetapkan atau mendukung poin yang diajukan oleh sebuah pihak dalam proses persidangan. Agar bukti dapat diterima, bukti itu harus dan "tidak dikecualikan oleh aturan pembuktian", yang secara umum berarti bahwa bukti itu tidak boleh secara tidak adil, dan harus memiliki indikasi yang dapat dipercaya. Aturan umum dalam pembuktian adalah bahwa semua bukti yang relevan dapat diterima dan semua bukti yang tidak relevan tidak dapat diterima, meskipun beberapa negara (seperti Amerika Serikat dan, sampai batas tertentu, ) melarang penuntutan untuk mengeksploitasi bukti yang hukum konstitusional, dengan demikti yang hukum konstitusional, dengan demik
, Beweisverbote stellen rechtsstaatliche Schranken dar, die der Gewinnung und der Verwertung von Beweisen gesetzt sind. Solche Verbote existieren in zahlreichen Verfahrensordnungen. Sie dienen in erster Linie dem Schutz der Verfahrensrechte der Parteien.
, 증거능력(證據能力)은 형사소송법상 증거가 엄격한 증명의 자료로 이용될 수 있 … 증거능력(證據能力)은 형사소송법상 증거가 엄격한 증명의 자료로 이용될 수 있는 법률상의 자격이다. 즉, 공소 범죄사실 등 주요사실을 인정하는 자료로 사용할 수 있는 법률상의 객관적인 자격을 의미한다. 반면 민사소송법에서는 유형물이 증거방법으로서 증거조사의 대상이 될 수 있는 자격을 말하는 것으로, 민사소송에서는 모든 증거방법은 원칙적으로 증거능력이 있다. 증거의 증거능력 유무는 법률에 따라서 판단된다. 증거능력이 없는 증거는 사실인정의 자료로서 인정받지 못하고, 공판정에서 증거로서의 제출도 불허된다. 이는 증거능력이 없는 증거에 대한 증거조사를 허용하면 법관의 형성에 부당한 영향을 줄 가능성이 있기 때문이다. 증거능력은 증거로서의 자격 유무, 즉 증거의 허용성에 관한 문제이므로, 증거의 실질적 가치를 의미하는 증명력과 구별된다. 따라서 임의성이 없는 자백, 반대신문권을 행사할 수 없는 전문증거, 당해 사건의 공소장 등은 증거능력이 없다고 인정된다.할 수 없는 전문증거, 당해 사건의 공소장 등은 증거능력이 없다고 인정된다.
|
| rdfs:label |
Beweisverbot
, 증거능력
, Bukti yang dapat diterima
, Admissible evidence
|
