Evidence (law) in the context of "Witness"

In law, a question of law, also known as a point of law, is a question that must be answered by a judge and can not be answered by a jury. Such a question is distinct from a question of fact, which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence as well as inferences arising from those facts. Answers to questions of law are generally expressed in terms of broad legal principles. They can be applied to many situations rather than particular circumstances or facts. An answer to a question of law as applied to the specific facts of a case is often referred to as a conclusion of law.

In several civil law jurisdictions, the highest courts deem questions of fact as settled by the lower courts and will only consider questions of law. They thus may refer a case back to a lower court to re-apply the law and answer any fact-based evaluations based on their answer on the application of the law. International courts such as the Benelux Court of Justice and the European Court of Justice will only answer questions of law asked by judges of national courts if they are uncertain about the interpretation of the law of multilateral organizations.

A judge is a person who presides over court proceedings, either alone or as a part of a judicial panel. In an adversarial system, the judge hears all the witnesses and any other evidence presented by the barristers or solicitors of the case, assesses the credibility and arguments of the parties, and then issues a ruling in the case based on their interpretation of the law and their own personal judgment. A judge is expected to conduct the trial impartially and, typically, in an open court.

The powers, functions, method of appointment, discipline, and training of judges vary widely across different jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, the judge's powers may be shared with a jury. In inquisitorial systems of criminal investigation, a judge might also be an examining magistrate. The presiding judge ensures that all court proceedings are lawful and orderly.

An appellate court, commonly called a court of appeal(s), appeal court, court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear a case upon appeal from a trial court or other lower tribunal. An appellate court other than a supreme court is sometimes referred to as an intermediate appellate court.

In much of the world, court systems are divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and considers factual evidence and testimony relevant to the case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a supreme court (or court of last resort) which primarily reviews the decisions of the intermediate courts, often on a discretionary basis. A particular court system's supreme court is its highest appellate court. Appellate courts nationwide can operate under varying rules.

A trial court or court of first instance is a court having original jurisdiction, in which trials take place. Appeals from the decisions of trial courts are usually heard by higher courts with the power of appellate review (appellate courts). Most appellate courts do not have the authority to hear testimony or take evidence, but instead rule solely on matters of law.

In the trial court, evidence and testimony are admitted under the rules of evidence established by applicable procedural law and determinations called findings of fact are made based on the evidence. The court, presided over by one or more judges, makes findings of law based upon the applicable law. In most common law jurisdictions, the trial court often sits with a jury and one judge; in such jury trials, the jury acts as trier of fact. In some cases, the judge or judges act as triers of both fact and law, by either statute, custom, or agreement of the parties; this is referred to as a bench trial.

In law, a trier of fact or finder of fact is a person or group who determines disputed issues of fact in a legal proceeding (usually a trial) and how relevant they are to deciding its outcome. To determine a fact is to decide, from the evidence presented, whether something existed or some event occurred.

The factfinder differs by the type of proceeding. In a jury trial, it is the jury; in a non-jury trial, the judge is both the factfinder and the trier of law. In administrative proceedings, the factfinder may be a hearing officer or a hearing body.

Legal proceeding is an activity that seeks to invoke the power of a tribunal in order to enforce a law. Although the term may be defined more broadly or more narrowly as circumstances require, it has been noted that "[t]he term legal proceedings includes proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority, and an appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal". Legal proceedings are generally characterized by an orderly process in which participants or their representatives are able to present evidence in support of their claims, and to argue in favor of particular interpretations of the law, after which a judge, jury, or other trier of fact makes a determination of the factual and legal issues.

• Activities needed to have a court deem legal process to have been provided, such as through service of process.
• Conduct of a trial, whether a lawsuit or civil trial, or a criminal trial.
• Issuance and enforcement of court orders, including those imposing foreclosure or receivership.
• Hearings, particularly administrative hearings.
• Arbitration.

In the United States, Congressional hearings are not generally considered legal proceedings, as they are generally not directed towards the imposition of a penalty against a specific individual for a specific wrong. However, impeachment proceedings are generally conducted as legal proceedings, although experts dispute the question of whether they are primarily legal proceedings, or are merely political proceedings dressed in legal formalities and language. Richard Posner, for example, has asserted that it was "the intent of the framers of the Constitution that an impeachment proceeding be primarily a legal proceeding, akin to a criminal prosecution, rather than a political one".

In law, a trial is a coming together of parties to a dispute, to present information (in the form of evidence) in a tribunal, a formal setting with the authority to adjudicate claims or disputes. One form of tribunal is a court. The tribunal, which may occur before a judge, jury, or other designated trier of fact, aims to achieve a resolution to their dispute.

Criminal investigation is an applied science that involves the study of facts that are then used to inform criminal trials. A complete criminal investigation can include searching, interviews, interrogations, evidence collection and preservation, and various methods of investigation. Modern-day criminal investigations commonly employ many modern scientific techniques known collectively as forensic science.

Criminal investigation is an ancient science that may have roots as far back as c. 1700 BCE in the writings of the Code of Hammurabi. In the code, it is suggested that both the accuser and the accused had the right to present evidence they collected. In the modern era, criminals investigations are most often done by government police forces. Private investigators are also commonly hired to complete or assist in criminal investigations.

Incontrovertible evidence and conclusive evidence (less formally, concrete evidence and hard evidence) are colloquial terms for evidence introduced to prove a fact that is supposed to be so conclusive that there can be no other truth to the matter; i.e., evidence so strong it overpowers contrary evidence, directing a fact-finder to a specific and certain conclusion.

A "conclusive evidence" clause may be included in a contract or deed of guarantee, having the effect of showing that, in the absence of manifest error, the guarantor is liable to deliver on their guarantee when their obligation is triggered. The Court of Appeal ruled in IIG Capital LLC v Van de Merwe (22 May 2008) that wording in a deed of guarantee, stating that "A certificate in writing signed by a duly authorised officer ... stating the amount at any particular time due and payable by the Guarantor ... shall, save for manifest error, be conclusive and binding on the Guarantor for the purposes hereof" bound the guarantor despite the otherwise "strong presumption" against a guarantee being treated as a demand bond or guarantee payable on demand, and the Commercial Court in England and Wales ruled on the effect of a similar clause in the case of Carey Value Added S.L. v Grupo Urvasco SA in 2010. Conclusive evidence clauses are interpreted strictly by the courts, with any ambiguity being resolved in favour of the guarantor.