The rules of evidence have been developed over the last thousand years and are based upon the rules from English Common Law brought to the New World by early settlers. Their purpose is to be fair to both parties, disallowing the raising of allegations without a basis in provable fact. They are sometimes criticized as a legal technicality, but are an important part of the system for achieving a just result.
Prevailing in court requires a good understanding of the rules of evidence in the given venue. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction. One reason to have a lawyer, among others, is that he or she should be familiar with the rules of evidence. If one were allowed simply to tell the court what one knew to be the truth, and how one knew it, one might prevail. However, the rules of evidence may prohibit one from presenting one's story just as one likes.
Perhaps the most important of the Rules of Evidence is that hearsay testimony is inadmissible (although there are many exceptions to this rule). This makes it impossible for the accuser to induce friends or family to give false evidence in support of their accusations because, normally, this evidence would be rejected by the presiding authority or judge. There are several examples where presiding authorities are not bound by the rules of evidence. These include the military tribunals established by the United States of America and tribunals used in Australia to try health professionals.
A recent ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court eased standards of proof for insurers seeking to prove insureds committed fraud under the New Jersey Fraud Protection Act by only requiring proof in the form of a "preponderance of evidence," rather than "clear and convincing evidence.".(Fraud Protection Act )(Brief article)
May 01, 2006; A recent ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court eased standards of proof for insurers seeking to prove insureds committed fraud...
Ionizing radiation exposure - more good than harm? The preponderance of evidence does not support abandoning current standards and regulations
Jun 01, 2006; The following discussion is in response to a recent commentary by Oakley PA, Harrison DD, Harrison DE, Hass JW: On "phantom...