PRESENTED BY
YUSSIF D. KABA
RESIDENT CIRCUIT JUDGE
SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, CIVIL LAW COURT
MONTSERRADO COUNTY, REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA

Something – including testimony, documents,
and tangible objects – that tends to prove or
disprove the existence of an alleged fact. It is
the collective mass of things, especially
testimony and exhibits, presented before a
tribunal in a given dispute.

Proof is the establishment or refutation of an
allege fact by evidence

A Criminal Case – sometimes referred to as a
Criminal Action or a Criminal Proceedings – is
an action instituted by the government to
punish offenses against the public

Offenses or Crimes are acts that the law makes
punishable; the breach of a legal duty treated
as the subject matter of a criminal proceedings.


A defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be
innocent until the contrary is proved; and in case
of a reasonable doubt whether his guilt is
satisfactorily shown, he is entitled to an acquittal.
This presumption of innocent continues
throughout the entire trial unless during the
evaluation of the evidence by the court sitting as
trial of fact and law, or by the jury sitting as trial of
fact in their room of deliberation, when it is
established that this presumption has been
overcome by the evidence.


A reasonable doubt is that uncertainty, or state of
being unsure of something, that prevents one from
being firmly convinced of a defendant’s guilt, or
the belief that there is a real possibility that the
defendant is not guilty.
It is that uncertainty about the truth or factual
existence of something for which a reason exists
and may arise from the evidence or lack of
evidence. It is such an uncertainty as would exist
in the mind of a sensible, fair, just, rational and
logical person after fully, fairly, and carefully
considering all of the evidence or lack of evidence.
There are two major kind or category of Evidence:1. Direct Evidence
2. Circumstantial Evidence
Evidence that is based on personal knowledge or
observation and that, if true, proves a fact without
inference or presumption. It is that species of
evidence that is given by a witness who testifies
concerning facts that he or she has directly
observed or perceived through the senses. I.e.
Hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting and feeling.
Evidence based on inference and not on personal
knowledge or observation.
It is all evidence that is not given by eyewitness
testimony.
It is evidence of facts or circumstances from which
the existence or nonexistence of other facts may be
reasonably inferred from common experience.
The law makes no distinction between the weight
to be given to either Direct or Circumstantial
Evidence. One is not necessarily more or less
valuable than the other.
The admissibility of circumstantial evidence in
criminal case is well established. The rule is one of
necessity, since only few conviction could be obtained
if direct testimony of eye witnesses was required.
However, Circumstantial Evidence may be excluded
where it is so vague that it does not have any
probative value.
In criminal cases, all facts that tend to exhibit the res
gestae, or to establish a chain of circumstantial
evidence with respect of the act charged are
admissible.
The quality or state of being allowed to be entered
into evidence in a hearing, trial, or other
proceedings.

Conditional Admissibility :- The evidentiary
rule that when a piece of evidence is not itself
admissible, but is admissible if certain other
facts make it relevant, the evidence becomes
admissible on condition that counsel later
introduce the connecting fact. If counsel does
not satisfy this condition, the opponent is
entitled to have the conditionally admitted
piece of evidence struck from the record, and to
have the judge instruct the jury to disregard it

The rule that an inadmissible piece of evidence
may be admitted if offered to cure or
counteract the effect of some similar piece of
the opponent’s evidence that itself should not
have been admitted

The principle that testimony or exhibit may be
admitted into evidence for a restricted purpose.
Common example are admitting prior
contradictory testimony to impeach a witness
but not to establish the truth, and admitting
evidence against one party but not another.
The trial court must, upon request, instruct the
jury properly about the applicable limits when
admitting the evidence.

The evidentiary rule that, although a piece of
evidence is inadmissible under one rule for the
purpose given in offering it, it is nevertheless
admissible if relevant and offered for some
other purpose not forbidden by the rule of
evidence.
The following constitute the qualities of admissible
evidence during a trial or proceedings:
 Relevant
 Material
 Competent
Relevant Evidence is evidence having any
tendency to make the existence of any fact that is
of consequence to the determination of the action
more probable than it would be without the
evidence. In other words, it is evidence tending
prove or disprove a matter in issue. In other
words, for evidence to be relevant that evidence
must tend to affect the probability of the existence
of a fact in dispute.
All Relevant evidence is admissible, with exception by
law as follows: Hearsay Evidence
 Untestable Evidence
 Untrustworthy Evidence
 Evidence contrary to scientific principles or natural
law
 Practical consideration of undue delay, confusion
of issues, or risks of prejudice to a party
 Evidence obtained illegally or in violation of basic
rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and
statutory law.
Material Evidence is evidence having some logical
connection with the fact of consequence or issue.
The term “material” means that the evidence tends
to prove a matter that is properly at issue in the
case. Material evidence are also said to be those
that are of consequence to the merit of the
litigation, while relevancy is a function of whether
the evidence tends to make the existence of a
material fact more or less probable.
Competent Evidence is evidence that follows the
rules and/or provision of the law. These are
evidence that conform to the provisions of the
Criminal Procedure Law on evidence, the rule of
court and other statutory requirements.
Character Evidence:- Evidence regarding someone’s
general personality trait or propensities, of a
praiseworthy or blameworthy nature; Evidence of a
person’s moral standing in the community.
Even though evidence of bad character and reputation
of a criminal defendant may be logically relevant and
of probative value, the courts, for sound reasons of
policy, hold that it is legally irrelevant since the
character of a person accused of a crime is generally
held not a fact in issue in prosecution for such crime.
However, once a defendant offers evidence as to a
pertinent character trait, the prosecution may offer
evidence in rebuttal.

Real or Demonstrative Evidence:- Physical
evidence that one can see and inspect (i.e., an
explanatory aid, such as chart, map, and some
computer simulation) and that, while of
probative value and usually offered to clarify
testimony, does not play a direct part in the
incident in question.
Impeachment Evidence:- Evidence used to
undermine a witness’s credibility.
Inculpatory Evidence:- Evidence showing or
tending to show one’s involvement in a crime or
wrong
Exculpatory Evidence:- Evidence tending to
establish a criminal defendant’s innocence.
The Prosecution has a duty to disclose exculpatory
evidence in its possession or control when the
evidence may be material to the outcome of the
case.
Expert Evidence:- Evidence about a scientific,
technical, professional, or other specialized issue
given by a person qualified to testify because of
familiarity with the subject or special training in
the field.
Incomplete or Inconclusive Evidence:- Evidence
that will not independently establish a fact at issue,
although otherwise relevant and of probative
value.
Such evidence is admissible if it tend to prove
certain element of an ultimate fact necessary to be
proved, and evidence is relevant and admissible if
it tends to corroborate evidence of certain,
although not all, elements of a necessary ultimate
fact.
Impeachment Evidence:- Evidence used to
undermine a witness’s credibility.
Opinion Evidence:- A witness’s belief, thought,
inferences, or conclusion concerning a fact or facts.
Generally it is only Opinion Evidence of Expert are
admissible evidence.



Evidence of Consciousness of Guilt
Evidence Admitted for Limited Purpose
Evidence Admissible only Against One Person
Illegally Obtained Evidence:- Evidence obtained
by violating a statute or a person’s constitutional
or other right.
 Forced confession
 Failure to acquaint with Miranda Rights
Hearsay Evidence:- Testimony that is given by a
witness who relates not what he or she knows
personally, but what others have said, and that is
therefore dependent on the credibility of someone
other than the witness
Remote Evidence:- Evidence that relates to a
matter too remote in time to have probative value.
Evidence of this nature are excluded as been
irrelevant.
However, the fact that evidence is remote in time
or probative value does not itself preclude its
admissibility, which depends on the nature and
circumstances of the case.
Evidence, although relevant, may be excluded if its
probative value is substantially outweighted by the
danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or
misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue
delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of
cumulative evidence.
This is consider to be an extraordinary remedy to be
used sparingly, and the less drastic action of
compelling compliance with conditions that will
remove or alleviate the prejudicial effect is also
authorized.
Our legal system follows the adversary procedural
system as that of the Anglo-American legal
system, involving active and unhindered parties
contesting with each other to put forth a case
before an independent decision maker or the court.
The law in our jurisdiction conferred upon a
criminal defendant the right of trial by a jury in
cases cognizable before a circuit court or court of
records.
A jury trial is a trial in which the factual issues are
determined by a group of person selected
according to law and given the power to decide
questions of fact and return a verdict in the case
submitted to them, while the trial judge during
such trial is given the power to decide questions
of law.
The jury is the sole judge of the credibility of each
witness, and the sole judge of the value or weight
to be given to the testimony of each witness.
The trial judge is the sole judge of the Sufficiency
of the Evidence



Credibility of a Witness or of Evidence:- is that
quality that makes the witness or the evidence
worthy of belief.
The weight of the evidence concerns the
inclination of the greater amount of credible
evidence offered in a trial, to support one side of
the issue rather than the other.
The weight of the evidence is its weight in
probative value, not the quantity or amount of
evidence. It is not determined by mathematics, but
depends on its effect in inducing belief.



Sufficiency of Evidence:- Adequate evidence of
such quality, number, force or value as is necessary
to support the finding of the trier of fact.
It is a test of adequacy. The final test for legal
sufficiency of the evidence must always be
whether the evidence at trial would enable
reasonable and fair minded people to reach the
verdict
It is a standard for reviewing a criminal conviction
or verdict on the question of whether enough
evidence exist to justify the fact trier’s finding of
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.


A conviction based on legally insufficient
evidence constitute denial of due process.
In addressing the issue of insufficiency of
evidence, a court must consider only the
probative evidence and reasonable inferences
supporting the verdict or judgment, without
weighting the evidence or assessing witness
credibility, and determine therefrom whether a
reasonable trier of fact could have found the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
In determining the weight of evidence, the jury
may reject that which it finds implausible, but
accept other parts which it finds to be believable,
and is free to choose among reasonable
interpretations or constructions of the evidence.
However, a verdict may not be permitted to rest
upon surmise, conjecture, inference, speculation or
guesswork.

The factfinder is free to determine the
credibility of the witnesses. More specifically, a
trier of fact has the power to accept or reject, in
whole or in part, a witness testimony
The proof of the essential elements of a crime must
be decided by the trier of fact and the test for the
sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case is
whether there is substantial evidence to support
the verdict.

Number of witnesses:- The issue, in a criminal
prosecution, of the guilt or innocence of the
accused is not to be determined solely by
counting the witnesses on one side or the other.
Rather numerical preponderance is one
circumstances to be considered along with
other facts and circumstances in the testimony
of the witnesses on either side. The testimony
of one witness is sufficient to prove any fact.
Additionally, a conviction may be sustained on
the testimony of a single witness or victim.



A trier of fact is free to believe or disbelieve an expert
witness.
A jury is free to reject the testimony of a defendant
where that testimony is inconsistent with other direct
or circumstantial evidence.
In considering the testiminy of a witness, the trier of
fact may take into consideration all the circumstances
of the case, such as whether the testimony is reasonable
and consistent with other evidence, the witness
appearance, conduct, memory and knowledge of the
facts; the witness’s interest in the trial; and the
witness’s emotional and mental state.


In general, a party is bound by its own
testimony which is favorable to the adverse
party, unless the testimony is later withdrawn,
explain, or modified.
If a party testifies to a fact, not as a matter of
opinion, estimate, appearance, inference, or
uncertain memory, but as a considered
circumstance of the case, the opposing party is
entitled to hold him to it as an informal judicial
admission.

If hearsay evidence is admitted after a failure to
object, the question presented becomes that of
the weight, and not the admissibility of the
hearsay.

The fact that a witness makes inconsistent
statement with regard to the subject matter
does not render his testimony unworthy of
belief. Such inconsistency does not make the
testimony insufficient. It goes to the credibility
of the witness and the testimony to be
determine by the jury.

Conflict and discrepancies between earlier
statements and in-court testimony go to the
weight, if any, the jury should give the
testimony.


Uncontroverted Testimony
Physical Fact Rule


Photographs
Motion Picture



Public and official books, records and
documents;
Books of account;
Death Certificate




Presence at scene of crime,
Time of offense;
Intent;
Venue;


The jury are to determine the weight to be
attached to a confession.
Where a confession is admitted during a trial,
the jury must consider it in light of all the other
evidence in the case