Cathy E. These points must be carefully considered in order to form a correct opinion. The first question should be; Is that possible? If so, are there any circumstances that make this impossible? If the facts are impossible, the witness should not be named. For example, if a man swears that he saw the deceased shoot himself with his own pistol and an examination of the bullet that killed him reveals that it is too big to fit in the weapon, the witness should not be named. Or if someone swears that someone else is guilty of an impossible crime. As early as 1937, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a totality test should be used to determine whether a person is considered a «farmer» under U.S. bankruptcy law. [9] In its 1983 decision in Illinois v. Gates, the Supreme Court ruled that the totality of circumstances test should be used to assess whether an anonymous tip is sufficient to provide probable cause. [10] Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority of the Court, stated that a totality test was superior to a clear line because judges would not be «limited in their power to make probable causal determinations.» [11] In its 2013 decision in Florida v. Harris, the Supreme Court confirmed that «lower court judges must reject rigid rules, clear line tests and mechanistic investigations in favor of a more flexible and comprehensive approach.» [12] However, some scholars have suggested that recent decisions of the Florida Supreme Court v.
Harris and Prado Navarette v. California departs from the court`s previous case law on totality testing by introducing «exemptions for drug-addicted dogs and drunk driving from the totality of circumstances approach.» [13] Proven facts are possible or impossible, ordinary and probable or extraordinary and improbable, younger or old; They may have occurred near us or far away; they are public or private, permanent or temporary, clear and simple or complicated; They are always accompanied by circumstances that more or less influence the mind in the formation of judgment. And in some cases, these circumstances take on the character of irresistible evidence; For example, if a woman was found dead in a room, with all the signs of violent death, the presence of another person on the scene was manifested by the bloody mark of a left hand on her left arm. The best way to explain circumstantial evidence is to say what it is not – it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something.2 min spent reading A principal act or event that is the subject of an investigation, the circumstances are the related or incidental facts or events associated with it. who precede or follow him closely, who surround and accompany him, who depend on him or who support him or qualify him Pfaffenbach v. Eisenbahn, 142 Ind. 246, 41 N. E.
530; Klara v. Menschen, 9 colo. 122. 10 Pac. 799. The terms «circumstance» and «fact» are synonymous in many applications; But the real difference of a circumstance is its relative character. «Any fact may be a circumstance relating to another fact.» 1 Benth. Jud. Evid. 42, footnote; No. 142. Integrity, reliability, legal capacity and stability of character are, for example, «circumstances that may very well be taken into account in determining the question of `sufficient security`.
Martin v. Herzog, 5 Itedf. On. (N.Y.) 600. In law, the examination of all the circumstances refers to a method of analysis in which decisions are based on all available information and not on clear rules. [1] In considering the totality of the circumstances, courts focus «on all the circumstances of a particular case and not on a particular factor.» [2] In the United States, the totality test is used as an analytical method in various areas of law. [3] For example, in U.S. criminal law, the establishment of suspicion or reasonable cause is based on an examination of the totality of the circumstances. [4] n.
in criminal law, conditions or events that do not condone or justify criminal conduct, but that are considered leniency or fairness out of clemency or fairness in deciding the degree of crime charged to the prosecutor or influencing the reduction of sentence in the event of a conviction. Example: A young man shoots his father after years of being beaten, belittled, insulted and treated lovelessly. The «heat of passion» or the «diminishing of capacity» are forms of such extenuating circumstances. Supported by Black`s Law Dictionary, Free 2nd ed., and The Law Dictionary. Circumstantial evidence is in principle admissible in court, unless the connection between fact and conclusion is too weak to assist in deciding the case. Many convictions for various crimes were largely based on circumstantial evidence.