Race, Evidence, and Epistemic Injustice

This chapter starts off with a definition of “racist evidence” that includes: (1) evidence that suggests one racial group is inferior to or superior to another racial group in any way, (2) products of structural racism, (3) racially disparate evidentiary burdens in proving one’s racialized reality, and (4) the ways that racism distorts observation, perception and—accordingly—belief, which is then utilized as a basis of proof in legal proceedings.” Based on this definition, the chapter identifies and analyzes the epistemic problems posed by racialized factfinding and relates them to the broader notion of cultural cognition. This discussion focuses on the epistemic failings of “racial character evidence” and the unequal evidentiary treatment of white—as opposed to Black and Brown—“racialized reality evidence,” especially on matters of structural racism and race relations with law enforcement. While white racialized reality evidence receives “implicit judicial notice” and is fast-tracked to the jury box, the racialized reality evidence of Black and Brown people is subject to the full rigors of evidentiary scrutiny and often times suppressed. This system results in apervasive type of epistemic injustice.

The Naturalized Epistemology Approach to Evidence

Studying evidence law as part of naturalized epistemology means using the tools and results of the sciences to evaluate evidence rules based on the accuracy of the verdicts they are likely to produce. This chapter introduces the approach and addresses skeptical concerns about the value of systematic empirical research for evidence scholarship, focusing, in particular, on worries about the external validity of jury simulation studies. Finally, turning to applications, it discusses possible reforms regarding eyewitness identifications and character evidence.

19. Character Evidence and the Accused as a Witness at Trial

This chapter examines the evidential rules that apply to the defendant at trial. These include the defendant’s competence and compellability; the course of the defendant’s evidence; drawing an adverse inference under s. 35 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 from the defendant’s silence at trial; the admissibility of a defendant’s past bad character; admissibility of defendant’s good character; and arguments for and against the defendant giving evidence.

10. Character Evidence

Chapter 10 begins with a discussion of the relevance of evidence of character. It then deals with the admissibility of character evidence in civil and criminal proceedings. In civil cases, the admissibility of evidence of a party’s bad character is governed simply by the test of relevance. In criminal proceedings, the entitlement of a defendant to a direction on the significance of his or her good character is taken seriously. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 now provides a comprehensive statement of the law on evidence of bad character in criminal proceedings.

Evidence

Andrew Choo’s Evidence provides an account of the core principles of the law of civil and criminal evidence in England and Wales. It also explores the fundamental rationales that underlie the law as a whole. The text explores current debates and draws on different jurisdictions to achieve a mix of critical and thought-provoking analysis. Where appropriate the text draws on comparative material and a variety of socio-legal, empirical, and non-legal material. This (sixth) edition takes account of revisions to the Criminal Procedure Rules, the Criminal Practice Directions, and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Codes of Practice. It also examines in detail cases on various topics decided since the last edition was completed, or the significance of which has become clear since then, including: • Addlesee v Dentons Europe llp (CA, 2019) (legal professional privilege) • Birmingham City Council v Jones (CA, 2018) (standard of proof) • R v B (E) (CA, 2017) (good character evidence) • R v Brown (Nico) (CA, 2019) (hearsay evidence) • R v C (CA, 2019) (hearsay evidence) • R v Chauhan (CA, 2019) (submissions of ‘no case to answer’) • R v Gabbai (Edward) (CA, 2019) (bad character evidence) • R v Gillings (Keith) (CA, 2019) (bad character evidence) • R v Hampson (Philip) (CA, 2018) (special measures directions) • R v K (M) (CA, 2018) (burden of proof) • R v Kiziltan (CA, 2017) (hearsay evidence) • R v L (T) (CA, 2018) (entrapment) • R v Reynolds (CA, 2019) (summing-up) • R v S (CA, 2016) (hearsay evidence) • R v SJ (CA, 2019) (expert evidence) • R v Smith (Alec) (CA, 2020) (hearsay evidence) • R v Stevens (Jack) (CA, 2020) (presumptions) • R v Townsend (CA, 2020) (expert evidence) • R v Twigg (CA, 2019) (improperly obtained evidence) • R (Jet2.com Ltd) v CAA (CA, 2020) (legal professional privilege) • R (Maughan) v Oxfordshire Senior Coroner (SC, 2020) (standard of proof) • Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corpn Ltd (CA, 2018) (legal professional privilege) • Shagang Shipping Co Ltd v HNA Group Co Ltd (SC, 2020) (foundational concepts; improperly obtained evidence) • Stubbs v The Queen (PC, 2020) (identification evidence) • Volaw Trust and Corporate Services Ltd v Office of the Comptroller of Taxes (PC, 2019) (privilege against self-incrimination) • Volcafe Ltd v Cia Sud Americana de Vapores SA (SC, 2018) (burden of proof)

"Obviate!": Addressing Magical Thinking about Limiting Instructions and Character Evidence

N/A

Model Pembiasaan Karakter Kedisiplinan melalui Kegiatan Ekstrakulikuler Pramuka di MI Al-Muhsin Yogyakarta

This research is motivated by the current era of strengthening character education is an important thing to do considering the number of loss of character education values currently very alarming. One of the characters that must be possessed by students as an effort in social problems is the character of discipline. The formulation of the problem in this study is how to model the discipline of disciplinary character through scout extracurricular activities in MI Al-Muhsin Yogyakarta. The purpose of this study was to determine the model of disciplinary character habituation through scout extracurricular activities at MI Al-Muhsin Yogyakarta. This research method is a type of descriptive research with a qualitative approach. Research subjects include the headmaster of madrasas, teachers, scoutmaster, and students. This research was conducted at MI Al-Muhsin Yogyakarta. When thhis research was conducted around March-April 2020. Data collection techniques used were observation, interviews, and documentation. Data collection tools used are audio, video and photo recording. Check the validity of the data by triangulating data and sources. While the data analysis used is data reduction, data presentation and data verification. The results showed that there was a model for disciplining character through the scout extracurricular activities at MI Al-Muhsin Yogyakarta through rewards and punishments applied. There is a relationship between scout extracurricular activities and disciplinary character. Evidence of the success of the Boy Scouts extracurricular activities in building disciplinary character at MI Al-Muhsin Yogyakarta, namely five minutes before the ceremony the students are ready and gathered by wearing the full boy scout uniform, students in an orderly manner paying front group contributions, and students are willing to pay fines and money Scoutmaster also pays if he does not order too. This research can add knowledge, experience as well as insights on the disciplinary character refraction model through scout extracurricular activities so that it can improve and be considered for other researchers, as prospective educators to enter the world of education.