Do not be concerned by its appearance of complexity. It is a clear, manageable system of notation. The best understanding of this method can be obtained from briefly discussing it from three perspectives: 1 The original Wigmore Chart Method dating from 1913. 2 Anderson and Twining’s modification of the Wigmore Chart Method, from the mid-1980s. 3 Use of the modified method in this book as an aid for understanding argument construction. This will give a firm understanding of the discussions above through a practical demonstration. This discussion will then be followed by a practical demonstration of the modified Chart Method (changed slightly for our use) looking at the fictional criminal case of R v Mary. This is a demonstration devised to continue the development of argumentative skills already discussed in this chapter. A second case, R v Jack, is provided at the end of the chapter to allow students to try out their developing skills by analysing and charting a new case and building an argument. 7.10.1 The original Wigmore Chart Method John Wigmore wanted to restore an imbalance in the approach to evidence to be used in the trial. He first unveiled his views in an article published in the Illinois Law Review in 1913. He was concerned with issues surrounding the law of evidence. The law of evidence, as it is normally considered in university courses and in practice, is particularly concerned with the what type of evidence is admissible in court to prove the case of the parties. It is also concerned with the procedures that need to be followed to ensure that allowable evidence is not rendered inadmissible due to procedural and avoidable mistakes by those dealing with it before it reaches the court room. (This covers the field of forensic science as well as witness testimony.) Wigmore, however, believed that while the admissibility of evidence and the following of procedures are important aspects of the law relating to evidence, there was another more important area that had been completely ignored. This was the aspect of proof itself. What is the effect of the admissible evidence? How does it build to a finding of case proved for or against one party? Can it be said that there is a science of proof? Here of course issues relating to evidence and the construction of argument begin to merge. Wigmore sees proof in terms of the proving of points in argument persuading judges and juries of the outcome of a case. He argued:

AbstractThe Prima facie view regarding the admissibility of admissions, as evidence, in criminal matters is that, to admit admissions as evidence, the court requires a single consideration as to whether the admission was made freely and voluntarily. Without too much ado, the simple view to this understanding presupposes that admission of an admission as evidence against its maker is of a lesser danger compared to the admission of a confession. The admissibility of confessions against their makers does not come as easily as that of admissions. There are many prescribed requirements to satisfy before confessions are admitted as evidence. This comparison has led to a questionable conclusion that requirements for the admissibility of admissions are of a less complexity equated to the requirements for the admission of confessions. This paper answers the question whether an inference that the requirements for the admissibility of admissions are of a less complexity compared to the requirements for the admission of confessions is rational? It equates this approach to the now done away with commonwealth states rigid differentiation perspective. In the 1800s the commonwealth states, especially those vowing on the Wigmorian perspective on the law of evidence, developed from a rigid interpretation of confessions and admissions and adopted a relaxed and wide definitions of the word, “confession.” To this extent there was a relaxed divide between confessions and admissions hence their common classification and application of similar cautionary rules. The article recounts admissibility requirement in section 219A of the South African Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA) (Hereinafter CPA). It then analyses Section 219A of the CPA requirement in the light of the rationale encompassing precautions for the admission of confessions in terms of 217(1) of the CPA. It exposes the similarities of potential prejudices where confessions and admissions are admitted as evidence. It reckons that by the adherence to this rigid differentiation perspectives of confessions and admissions which used to be the practice in the commonwealth prior the 1800s developments, South African law of evidence remains prejudicial to accused persons. To do away with these prejudices this article, recommends that section 219A be amended to include additional admissibility requirements in section 217(1). In effect it recommends the merging of sections 217(1) and 219A of the CPA.

Download Full-text

Handbook of the Law of Evidence

California Law Review ◽

10.2307/3478104 ◽

1955 ◽

Vol 43 (2) ◽

pp. 365

Author(s):

James H. Chadbourn ◽

Charles T. McCormick

Keyword(s):

The Law ◽

Law Of Evidence

Download Full-text

Codification of the Law of Evidence in Common Law Jurisdictions

International and Comparative Law Quarterly ◽

10.1093/iclqaj/5.3.347 ◽

1956 ◽

Vol 5 (3) ◽

pp. 347-363

Author(s):

G. D. Nokes

Keyword(s):

Common Law ◽

The Law ◽

Law Of Evidence

Download Full-text

The Law of Evidence-Some Proposals for Its Reform

The Yale Law Journal ◽

10.2307/790261 ◽

1927 ◽

Vol 37 (2) ◽

pp. 279

Author(s):

Elbert B. Hamlin ◽

Edmund M. Morgan ◽

Zechariah Chafee ◽

Ralph W. Gifford ◽

Edward W. Hinton ◽

...

Keyword(s):

The Law ◽

Law Of Evidence

Download Full-text

SCIENTIFIC VIEWS OF M.K. TREUSHNIKOV THROUGH THE PRISM OF PUBLICATION ACTIVITY

Herald of Civil Procedure ◽

10.24031/2226-0781-2021-11-5-222-232 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (5) ◽

pp. 222-232

Author(s):

D.Kh. VALEEV ◽

N.N. MAKOLKIN

Keyword(s):

Higher Education ◽

Civil Procedure ◽

Scientific Activity ◽

Publication Activity ◽

State University ◽

Procedural Law ◽

The Law ◽

Complete Bibliography ◽

Law Of Evidence ◽

Moscow State University

This article is an attempt to briefly analyze the scientific activity of Mikhail Konstantinovich Treushnikov, which is carried out through the prism of his publication activity in all its manifestations. In addition, this study presents an attempt to collect a complete bibliography of M.K. Treushnikov. The significance of this study is determined both by its uniqueness, which is due to the use of information from various sources, and the presence of individual theses and conclusions formulated by the authors. Thus, this work focuses on the fact that M.K. Treushnikov, in addition to considering the problems of civil and arbitral procedural law, paid attention to the development of problems of higher education, including in terms of methodology, and that, perhaps, allowed him to create a real school of civil procedure law in the walls of the Lomonosov Moscow State University. In addition, the thesis is put forward and substantiated that M.K. Treushnikov was actively engaged in questions of the law of evidence, as well as judicial law, which were widely reflected in his numerous works published in various journals and collections, as well as embodied in monographs.

Download Full-text