Similar Fact Evidence

12/10/2013

2 Comments
 

Similar fact evidence is a type of evidence which is generally inadmissible in the eyes of the law.
At first glance, I will say that similar fact evidence is not a relevant fact as I do not see its connection with
the fact in issue. And we have also learned that evidence which is not relevant to the fact in issue will not
be admissible. To me, it is a clear-cut rule that relevance is the pre-condition to admissibility of evidence.

Nevertheless, not all admissible evidence is always relevant. Similar fact evidence thus falls under this
category. Meaning that the similar fact may be relevant to one accused, but not another. It may be
admissible in this case, but not the other. Therefore, the above said is only a general view and a general
rule. Note that law always provides exceptions on a general rule. So what is similar fact evidence? Why is
it generally inadmissible? And what is the rationale to admit similar fact evidence? How does it
admissible under the law? Well, the picture below will give you some idea about similar fact evidence.

WHAT IS SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE ?

WHY IS IT GENERALLY INADMISSIBLE ? WHAT IS THE RATIONALE TO ADMIT SIMILAR FACT

EVIDENCE ?

HOW DOES IT ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW ?

In other words, similar fact evidence is evidence concerning the accused’s acts on occasions other than the one
he is now charged, to prove his guilt by reason of their striking similarity. Although they are not connected, the
subject matter in question must be the same.

For example, if A was charged with murder of B by cyanide poisoning, the similar fact shows that A’s former wife
died the same way under the same circumstances, but if A had never been charged with causing the death of his
former wife, the similar fact evidence could not be admitted. So in order to be admissible, the law required the
similar fact evidence to have a certain degree of probative value to provide an underlying link in relation with the
accused’s state of mind. Let's have a look on the law and its principle in dealing with similar fact evidence.

Makin v Attorney General for New South Wales (1894) is the first leading case governing
the admissibility of similar fact evidence.
Facts: a husband and wife were accused of murdering infant whose body was found buried in a garden which
they formerly occupied.
Similar fact evidence: 12 other bodies had been found on the premises occupied at different times by the
accused.
The accused: the child died of natural causes. It was accidental.
The court: evidence is admissible.
Reasoning: the discovery of dead bodies of babies in similar circumstances was relevant to show that the
defence of accident was most improbable.
Lord Herschell L.C. laid down two principles:

1. Propensity evidence is inadmissible. (Propensity evidence is evidence merely to show that the accused
is a person likely from his criminal conduct or character to have committed the offence for which he is
being tried.)
2. The similar fact evidence is admissible and so relevant ONLY IF it relates to the issue of whether the
acts alleged to constitute the crime charged were designed or accidental OR it rebuts a defence which
would otherwise be open to the accused.
The chart above highlighted the key points of Makin's principle. The Makin’s principle consists of two limbs. The
first limb is the general rule or known as the exclusionary rule. Section 54(1) of the Evidence Act 1950 is in line
with this rule whereby in criminal proceedings, the fact that the accused has a bad character is irrelevant, unless
evidence has been given that he has a good character.

The second limb is the only exception to the first limb or known as the inclusionary part. If the evidence relates to
the issue of proving mens rea, or when there is no plea of guilt by the accused, then such evidence will be
relevant under this limb. Both section 14 and 15 of the Evidence Act 1950 adopt this principle.

Section 14 provides for the relevancy of facts showing the existence of the accused’s state of mind ‘in reference’
to the matter in question. Section 15 provides the relevancy of facts formed part of a series of similar occurrences
in which the accused doing the act was concerned, and when the issue of mens rea is debatable. It is important
to note that both sections only operate when the accused’s state of mind is in issue. In other words, they only
refer to the mens rea, not actus reus. Hence, the similar fact evidence cannot be adduced to prove the crime was
actually committed by the accused. Otherwise it will become a propensity evidence which is inadmissible.

Yet, Makin’s principle under the second limb is not confined merely to evidence of showing state of mind, it can
even extend to prove actus reus. Reference can be made to the case of:
-R v Straffen. A young girl was murdered in an unusual way. The accused had escaped from a mental institution
and was recaptured shortly after the murder occurred. He had been seen near the crime place. The fact that the
accused had confessed on two previous convictions for such unusual murders of young girls, was relevant to
prove his identity.
-R v Thompson. The accused was charged with homosexual offences against boys who told the police that he
had arranged to meet them at a place. The police found powder puffs on him and photos of naked boys in his
home. The evidence is relevant to show he was a homosexual.

Thus, it is obvious that the Makin’s principle offers a wider approach than the Evidence Act 1950. However the
decision of Thompson case and Straffen case will not be the same today as there was a reformulation of the
Makin’s Principle by another leading case of Boardman v DPP [1975].

Boardman v DPP [1975] requires a balance between probative force and prejudicial effect in assessing
the admissibility of similar fact evidence.
Facts: the headmaster was charged with committing buggery with two boys.
Similar fact evidence: the accused had visited the boy’s dormitory in early morning and invited the boy to his
sitting room and asked each boy to take the active role while he assumed the passive role in acts of buggery.
The court: evidence is admissible.
Reasoning: the combination of the stories of the two boys were sufficient to justify admissibility.
Lord Wilberforce: the probative value must outweigh the prejudicial effect.

Compare with the Boardman’s approach, it seems that the Makin’s Principle emphasizes to rebut the accidental
feature pursuing after a relatively low standard of proof of relevancy. While the Boardman’s approach
reformulated the rule by shifting the emphasis to the degree of relevance in which the similar fact evidence
possess a strong degree of probative force that outweighed its prejudicial effect.

In conclusion, Boardman’s approach altered the basis of admissibility whereby:

(a) Admissibility is no longer based on a specific purpose to rebut a particular type of defence raised.
(b) Evidence is admissible so long as it has a sufficient degree of probative value as to override any prejudicial
effect.
(c) There was no possibility of collaboration between the witnesses.

Malaysia had long time relied on Makin’s Principle in ruling the cases and the position now is in addition to that,
we follow the Boardman’s approach. The following cases were referred:
-PP  v  Veeran Kutty (1990). Held: The evidence of similar fact is relevant as being strikingly similar that to
exclude it would be an affront to common sense.
-Junaidi bin Abdullah v PP (1993). Held: Where the purpose of adducing similar fact evidence is justifiable on the
ground of relevancy and necessity to rebut any defence, it is admissible provided its probative value outweighs
its prejudicial value.
-Azahan bin Mohd Aminallah v PP (2005). Held: The balancing test must be carry out to prove that the interest of
justice outweigh any prejudicial dangers.

Viewing the above cases, obviously all of them are in favour of Boardman’s approach.  In Junaidi case, the
Makin’s Principle and Boardman’s approach were relied in addition to section 14 and 15 of the Evidence Act
1950. It was also held in Azahan case that even if the evidence is relevant under section 14 or 15 of the
Evidence Act 1950, the judge would still have to see if the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect. So
what will then be the function of section 14 and 15? In fact both sections expressly stated that the evidence is
tendered by a specific purpose, that is to show the accused’s mens rea. The Boardman’s approach however
does not require such a purpose, but rather a strong probative force that outweigh the prejudicial effect. If it
would be a question of probativeness, does it mean that the relevancy of similar fact evidence comes within
section 11(b) of the Evidence Act 1950 which specifically deals with the test of probability? Well, I would say that
the law is just far beyond what the Act covered.

Prepared by : Yap Wan Ying (A132700)

2 Comments

Dying Declaration under Section 32 of Evidence Act 1950

12/8/2013

0 Comments
 

Dying Declaration originated from a legal maxim "nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire", that is a man will not
meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. 

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court. However, dying declaration is an exception to this rule and its
admissibility is explained in Section 32 of the Evidence Act 1950.

The section states that the statements can be made either in written or verbal, by a person:

1. who is dead; or 

2. who cannot be found; or 
3. who has become incapable of giving evidence; or
4. whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay, which under the circumstances of
the case, appears to the court unreasonable.
In must be noted that the law laid down in Section 32 is different from English common law relating to dying
declaration.

Dying Declaration Under Section 32 of the Evidence Act

1. It must either relate to the cause of the maker's death or to the circumstances which led to his death.
2. The person who made the statement was or was not at the time the statement was made under
expectation of death.
3. The statement is admissible in any case in which the death of the maker of the statement is in question.
4. Apply to both civil and criminal proceedings.

Dying Declarations Under English Common Law

1. It must relate exclusively to the cause of death itself.

2. The person who made the statement must at the time of the statement was made under expectation of
death.
3. The statement is admissible in homicide cases (murder and manslaughter) only.
General Principles Relating to the Admissibility of Dying Declarations

1. A dying declaration need not be proved by writing at all. However, the exact words spoken by the
deceased must be given. (per Rose CJ in Toh Lai Heng v R [1961] ML 53)
2. Where a dying declaration is made in answer to questions, then the questions should be recorded. If
this is not done, the value of the deposition may fairly be questioned. (per Briggs Ag J in  Naranjan
Singh v PP [1949] MLJ 122)
3. The statement must be formally proved. It cannot be proved merely by the production of the document;
it must shown affirmatively that the document accurately represents what the deceased said. (per Briggs
Ag J in  Naranjan Singh v PP [1949] MLJ 122)
4. Dying declaration is not a statement made on oath and which had not been submitted to the test of
cross-examination. (per Whyatt CJ in  Mohamed bin Allapitchay & Ors v R [1958] MLJ 197)
5. It is essential for the court to assess the credibility of the deceased before relying on the statement
made by him. (per thomson CJ in Chan Phuat Khoon v PP [1962] MLJ 127)
6. Non-production of a dying declaration by the prosecution is fatal. (per Ong Hock Thye FJ in Chow Siew
Woh v PP [1967] 1 MLJ 228)
7. A dying declaration does not require any corroboration. (per Hill JA in Mary Shim v PP [1962] MLJ 132)

Besides, Section 32(1)(b) mentions the statements must have been made in the course of business. This
paragraph is confined in its operation to a statement which is based on the personal knowledge of its maker.
Hence, only first-hand hearsay is admissible (refer the High Court case of Allied Bank Bhd v Yau Jiok Hua
[1998] 6 MLJ 1). Also, in order to dispense with the attendance of the maker the entry must not contain any
expression of opinion (per Winslow J in Vaynar Suppiah & Sons v KMA Abdul Rahim & Anor [1974] 2 MLJ
183).

As in the case of a dying declaration, the evidentiary value of a statement may be reduced in the absence of
cross-examination of the make of the statement. However, it was held by the Supreme Court in Ng Yiu Kwok &
Ors v PP [1989] 3 MLJ 166 that since the entries are made in the course of business, there is
a presumption that they had been made with a disinterested motive and can be taken to be generally true.
On the other hand, in order to be admissible, the statement must be against pecuniary or proprietary interest
of the maker; or it must contain some wrongdoing, negligent or reckless conduct on part of the maker. The
rationale of admitting a statement against the interest of the person making it is that a person is not likely to make
a statement against his own interest (per Lord Buckmaster in Dal Bahadur v Bijal Bahadur AIR [1930] PC 79).

Application of the Section 32

1. A statement is relevant only if it falls within the scope of 1(a) until (j) of the section (per Edgar Joseph Jr
J in Kee Lik Tian v PP [1984] 1 MLJ 306).
2. The issue for determination is the admissibility of a statement under the section and the weight to be
attached to it (per KC Vohrah J in PP v Mohd Jamil bin Yahya & Anor [1993] 3 MLJ 702).
3. Evidence must be adduced to show why a witness could not give evidence and the mere fact that the
witness is in foreign country is not sufficient to invoke the aid of the section to tender a statement made
by him (per Winslow J in Vaynar Suppiah & Sons v KMA Abdul Rahim & Anor [1974] 2 MLJ 183).
4. Where evidence adduced was insufficient to render a statement admissible under 1(i) (per Wahab Patail
J in PP v Chow Kam Meng [2001] 7 CLJ 38).

Written by: A132900

Disclaimer: All images in this entry are taken from public domains and are copyright to their respective owners.
No copyright infringement is intended.

0 Comments

Oral confession, is it admissible?

12/3/2013

0 Comments
 

Example : 
                John: I killed her yesterday 
                Mike (police officer): You did?why?
               John: I was mad at her, she slept with my best friend .

With reference of the above example

Issue:

1. Are all confession made are treated as admission under the law? A

valid confession is the most
valuable and reliable evidence in the possession of the prosecution.

Definition of admission: Section 17(1) (Evidence Act, 1950) states that “an admission is a
statement oral or documentary which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant
fact and which is made by any of the persons and under the circumstances hereinafter
mentioned

Definition of confession: Section 17(2) of the Evidence Act 1950 defined confession as an

admission made at any time by a person accused of an offence, stating or suggesting the
inference that he committed that offence. 

So what is the status of confession evidence?

Rule 1: the confession must be made by the accused.

The law would consider it as hearsay when the admission is repeated in the court by a police
officer or other witnesses. The court should rely on the truth of that statement. The classic
judicial statement of the rule was formulated by the Privy Council in Subramaniam v
PP (1956) :

“Evidence of a statement made to a witness by a person who is not himself called as a witness
may or may not be hearsay. It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is
to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement…”

The test to see whether a statement is a confession: Anandagoda v The Queen is whether the
word of admission substantially admit guilt in the eyes of reasonable person reading it
 

Rule 2:the confession must be made voluntarily.

 The
inadmissibility of confession made out involuntary statement is seen in the case of Dato
Mokhtar Hashim & Anor v PP, (1963) Abdoolcader FJ said that:
No statement by an accused is admissible in evidence unless it is shown by the prosecution to have been
voluntary statement . [The accused had deprivation of food and drink and sleep, the manner in which the
accused was dressed and the fact of his being prevented from performing his prayers made his confession
unsafe. The prosecution had failed to discharge its obligation beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was
voluntary] -Refer to S24 of the Evidence Act- confession caused by inducement, threat or promise when
irrelevant in criminal proceeding .

 John voluntarily confess but to a police officer of unknown ranking. In order for it to be admissible, John needs to
confess by himself again in the Court of law voluntarily. What do you think?

QHAIRUNEESA MOHAMAD ESA A132812

ONG SWEE ENG A132709

0 Comments

Hearsay : The Rule Of Exclusion

11/15/2013

2 Comments
 

What is a hearsay evidence? 

Hearsay evidence is evidence, which is not based on one's senses. For example, by personal vision or hearing
but is based on the information through the medium of third persons. The meaning of "hearsay" or "original
evidence" and the distinction between them is perhaps best understood by way of examples. 

Let say, supposed a fact in issue in criminal proceedings is whether a man, H, shot his wife, W. X was an eye-
witnessed to the shooting and later said to Y, "H shot W." Y repeated X's statement to Z  and this two repeated
statements would be considered as a hearsay.

If X is called a witness to the proceedings, he, may give direct testimony of the shooting as he has the personal
or first-hand knowledge about the shooting. For the same reasons, neither Y nor Z, if they were called as a
witness, would not be able to recount the shooting unless it comes within the one of the exceptions to the rule of
hearsay.

In other word, hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event,
condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience nor can it be adequately substantiated. As a
legal term, hearsay can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the
truth of the matter asserted. 

Hearsay evidence under the common law consists of statements made by a person who has not been called as a
witness in the instant proceedings or who has been called as a witness but made a statement other than whilst
giving evidence with a vies to show the court that the contents of the statements are true. 

In Teper v R (1952), Lord Norman observed:

       "The rule against the insertion of hearsay evidence is fundamental. It is not the best evidence and it is not
delivered on oath. The          truthfulness and accuracy of the person whose words are spoken by another
witness cannot be tested by cross-examination,             and the light which his demeanour would throw on his
testimony is lost."

As a general rule, all relevant evidence are prima facie admissible, except for hearsay and opinion which is not
admissible. However, there are number of exceptions under the Evidence Act 1950 following the common law
namely :

1. Res Gestae
2. Dying declaration
3. Previous depositions of witness who cannot be called as witness
4. Entries in books of accounts kept in ordinary course of business
5. Section 60, Section 91 and section 92 of the Evidence Act 1950.

The rule does not apply where the purpose of adducing the evidence is to show not the truth of what was said but
certain statements were made. 

In Subramaniam v PP (1956),  it was an appeal from the Supreme Court of the Federation of Malaya to the Privy
Council. The facts were that the defendant was charged with the unlawful possession of firearms. His defence
was that he was acting under duress. he wished to repeat the threats that had been made to him of what would
happen if he refused to carry the weapon. The trial judge ruled that this evidence could not be given as it
contravened the hearsay rule. Mr De Silva in the Privy Council observed :

     "Evidence of a statement made to a witness by a person who is not himself called as a witness may or may
not be a hearsay. It         is a hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of
what is contained in the statement. It is       not a hearsay and s admissible when it is proposed to establish by
the evidence, not the truth of the statement, but the fact that        it was made."

There are two main things to consider in deciding whether a statement in a proceedings is caught by the
hearsay rule.

1. Whether it is an out f court assertion, which may be a statement or a gesture which is tendered in court
either as oral evidence or documentary evidence containing statement made by a person out of court.
2. Determining the purpose of the statement being tendered in the court. If the statement is tendered to
establish the truth of its contents, it is a then considered as a hearsay. If the statement is to establish
some other fact, then it is not a hearsay.

In PP v Ng Lai Huat & Ors (1990), the utterance of one of the five accused persons to the police officer who
negotiated with them and who sought to give evidence of these utterances at the trial as to the ransom which
they required were held to be hearsay because they were tendered to prove the truth of those utterances i.e. a
ransom had been demanded by all of them.

The rationale behind inadmissibility of hearsay evidence

1. It is not the best evidence as it is merely second hand evidence or inferior evidence
2. It is desirable in the interest of justice to get the person, whose statement is relied upon, into court for
his examination in the regular way in order that any possible source of inaccuracy an untrustworthiness
can be checked by the process of cross-examination
 3. It is not given an oath
4. It cannot be tested by cross-examination
5. The probative value may be very slightly 
6. It's admission may open the door to fraud and concoction
7. Its admission will allow weaker evidence to replace the stronger evidence
8. There is always a danger of exaggeration, misrepresentation and suppression of truth.

However, the exception to hearsay evidence can be looked upon in the Section 59 and Section 60 of the
Evidence Act 1950 even though these sections did not define hearsay evidence specifically. 

Prepared by:
Syarifah Dewi Siti Fatimah Bt Syed Ahmad  Fahmi Wafa
A132813

2 Comments

Relevancy of Facts in Evidence! Part 2

11/14/2013

0 Comments
 

Part 2
Section 8

This section basically says that a fact is relevant if it shows or constitutes motives or preparation and actual
conduct which lead to a fact in issue or relevant fact.

So let us break down Section 8 like how we had broken down Section 7. It will be broken down to three parts
which are:

i.                    Motive

ii.                  Preparation

iii.                Conduct

On the part of Motive, one can refer to illustrations (a) and (b) under section 8 of the act. To put it briefly, facts
are said to be relevant if they form reasons or ‘motives’ to the actual action for example the phrase, “I’m going to
kill her because....” The reason behind the act would prove to be the relevant fact.

In the case of Boota Singh, the court held that the police report made by the deceased 9 months before her
death was admissible under section 8 as evidence of the motive and as showing the relations between the
parties alleged by the prosecution. The court said that the report was not being tendered for the truth of its
contents but for the fact that the statement was made (the motive of reporting). The report was admissible as
conduct as it was not a mere statement but showed the deceased’s conduct in making the report.

In the case of Wong Foh Hin v PP, the court held that the evidence of the incestuous relationship between the
accused and his daughter was an admissible evidence to prove motive for the murder of his daughter.

Moving on to the part of Preparation, it basically refers to arranging the means or measures necessary for
committing the crime. One can also refer to illustrations (c) and (d) of the act for a better understanding.
Preparation here does not refer to preparation to commit a crime but also to prevent discovery, help his escape
or to avert suspicion from himself.
Conduct speaks for itself here. Basically if an act or conduct is done to any suit or proceeding in reference to
that suit or in reference to any fact in issue or relevant fact that it would be admissible. Looking at illustration (e),
(k), (k), (f), (g) and (h) of the act would also be helpful.

Looking at the case of Malkham Singh, the court held that the conduct or act of running away from the scene of
crime was highly relevant thus it is admissible.

The case of Lee Lee Chong then said that the act of the accused in absconding from the scene of the crime was
relevant under section 8 (2) which is similar to the case of Malkham Singh.

Differentiating Complaint from Statement

The difference was discussed in the case of PP v Aziz Bin Mohamad Din where it was said that a complaint is an
expression of feelings and is made with a view to redress or punish and is made to someone in authority
voluntarily and spontaneously. To me, the main difference here is that a complaint expects an action to be taken
after complain was being made. Illustration (j) is a good example of a complain being made and a difference
between a complain and a statement.

Another thing that one should know about proving a statement to be a complaint is that it is always up to the
prosecution to prove it to be within the meaning of section 8 of the Act. This means the prosecution would have
the burden of proof to prove this. In the case of PP v Aziz bin Mohamad Din, the prosecution had failed that the
statement made by the rape victim had amounted to a complaint. The prosecution failed to prove that the
statement made was done voluntarily and spontaneously therefore it was just a mere statement and not a
complaint.

Essentially Section 8 embodies what a complaint is, and Section 157, 32 (a) embodies that of a statement. A
complaint is said to be an expressive of feeling while a statement is an expression of knowledge, an imparting of
knowledge. A complaint is made shortly after the occurrence whilst a statement is not a complaint therefore is not
relevant under section 8 but is highly relevant as a dying declaration under section 32(a) or as corroborative
evidence under section 157. A complaint is most importantly made with the view or hope to redress or punish
another. A statement is not an evidence of conduct. A complaint is always made to someone with authority (not
always a police).

Section 9

To understand this better, we should once again break down the section and this section will be broken down into
seven parts as follows. The relevant facts under this section can be categorized as facts:

i.                    Which are necessary to explain a fact or relevant fact

ii.                  Which are necessary to introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact

iii.                Which support an inference suggested by a fact in issue or a relevant fact

iv.                Which rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or a relevant fact

v.                  Which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant

vi.                Which fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened

vii.              Which show the relation of the parties by whom any such fact was transacted

Teng Kum Seng v PP – the court admitted evidence that each of the victims identified the accused as the person
who was extorting them over the telephone (identification by voice)

PP v Toh Kee Huat – In this case the court held that fingerprints were admissible evidence because it was used
to prove identity (establish the identity of person)

Chan Sin v PP – during an identification parade, the persons of the parade should consist of persons from the
same station in life so that there will be no great disparity of ages in the persons on the parade.

PP v Amar Singh – it is wrong to identify the accused whilst he is in jail.

Section 10

This section can be nicely explained using the case of Mirza Akhbar v King Emperor. In that case there was a
conspiracy between a wife and her lover to murder her present husband. There were letters written between the
wife and her lover which indicated that they wanted to get married and first had to dispose of the husband. In the
letters they had decided to hire a hired killer. After the husband was killed, the hired killer was caught. The letters
were admitted under section 10.

However when the wife was arrested, she made a statement saying that her lover was involved. The court held
that this statement could not be admitted. Why? This is because section 10 cannot be widely construed so as to
include statement made by ONE conspirator in the absence of the OTHER. This is not allowed once the
conspiracy had been completed.

Section 11

This is a residuary section because it provides that facts which are not otherwise relevant under sections 5 to 10
will be relevant if they are inconstant with any fact in issue or relevant fact and by themselves or in connection
with other facts, they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or
improbable. Refer to illustration (a)

Chuah Chong Yen

A132934

0 Comments

Relevancy of Facts in Evidence! Part 1

11/14/2013

0 Comments
 

Part 1
So since we have a test on Monday (18/11/2013) on Relevancy and mainly on Section 8 of the Evidence to be
precise, I think it would be fitting if I posted on the matter at hand. I hope this would be helpful to all my course
mates and of course to neutrals reading this I hope it will be helpful nonetheless. I shall be making two separate
posts which will be known as Part 1 and Part 2. Please read both to further understand on the relevancy of facts
in evidence. However before I am criticized for posting on something a little bit off the theme of this blog I think it
is safe to say that differentiating between facts in issue and relevant facts still fill in the ambit of types of
evidences.

As we all know, to first introduce evidence it must first be relevant and admissible under Section 5 as seen in the
case of PP v Haji Kassim. Before going any further, although it’s been explained time and time again, I think I
should still explain on what are “Facts in Issue” and “Relevant Facts”.

Facts In Issue: Defined in Section 3 and more specifically described by Sir Rupert Cross as evidence that needs
to be proved by plaintiff (civil litigation) and prosecutor (criminal litigation) in order to succeed together with any
further facts the defendants (civil litigation) or accused (criminal litigation) must prove in order to establish a
defence. This is also known as direct evidence.

Relevant Facts: If facts in issue are direct evidence, then relevant facts in my own words refer to indirect
evidence or inferred evidence. They are facts which are not themselves in issue but are inferred from other facts
in issue. Section 6 to 55 shows ways in which one fact may be related to another so as to become relevant. If a
fact is proven to be connected to the facts in issue in any of the ways referred to in Section 6 to 55 then it is a
Relevant Fact and will be admissible. This is also known as circumstantial evidence.

From that we can see how important Section 6 to 55 (Chapter II) of the Evidence Act 1950 is. Basically Chapter II
is used to prove if evidence may be admitted or not. Evidence that could not be proven under Chapter II counts
for nothing even if it falls within the boundaries of Chapter I of the act.

Before proceeding into the detailed explanations of sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, here is a brief run down on
what they really are. These 6 sections are general provisions in governing the relevancy of facts. They are
worded widely as to avoid any use of specific criteria to enable more evidence to fall within the words of the
sections. Section 7 to 11 generally rejects the usage of hearsay evidence but still there are debates on the words
used in Section 6 as it allows hearsay evidence to be admitted as contrary to its following sections.

Section 6
This section basically describes what I said above on the definition of ‘Relevant Facts’. They are not facts in
issue but they are part of the same transaction as the facts in issue are relevant. I highly suggest that you guys
refer to the illustrations for a better understanding.

So what is this ‘transaction’ which it refers to? Sir James Stephen defines it to be a group of facts so connected
together as to be referred to by a single name, as a crime, a contract, a wrong or any other subject of enquiry
which may be in issue.’ So in other words, if a fact is connected to the fact in issue by a common interest or
relativity then it would be a relevant fact.

Thavanathan Balasubramaniam v PP  – in a ‘transaction’ which consist of different acts, in order to link it all up to
constitute ONE single transaction they must be common in proximity of time, proximity of place, continuity of
action and community of purpose of design.

Tan Geok Kwang v PP – in this case the accused was charged for carrying a revolver but there was an act of
throwing of the hand grenade instead of the firing of the said revolver. That act was admitted under section 6 of
the Act because it was part of the same transaction.

Jaafar bin Hussein v PP – this is another case which involves a hand grenade although the main charge was on
the accused for carrying a shotgun. The hand grenade was accepted to be a relevant fact because it was part of
the same transaction almost literally as the accused had the shotgun in one hand and the hand grenade in
another.

So what about the admissibility of hearsay evidence under section 6? There have been many arguments on the
words used under section 6 and also the LPQB (Legal Profession Qualifying Board) on hearsay evidence.
According to the LPQB, section 6 is a hearsay exception. Personally I feel that section 6 is not a hearsay
exception. Why? Well the reason is a very simple one. There are already hearsay exceptions and you can find
them under sections 17 to 38 so if section 6 is meant to be a hearsay exception then why was it not included
under those sections? Section 6 to 11 is mainly on the general provisions governing relevancy and it should stick
to that only. But the debate is wide open to be honest because there has been many theories on section 6 for
example is the link made by some of the legal communities between section 6 and res gestae (hearsay
exception) of the common law. There has also been case laws that proves section 6 as a hearsay exception and
also case laws that disprove it.

Kok Ho Leng v PP – the judge said obiter that a telephone message could be admitted under section 6 and res
gestae which strongly suggests that section 6 admits hearsay

Chotka v State – This Indian case is for the admission of hearsay evidence under section 6

PP V Sam Hong Hong Choy  – The court admitted that the utterances of ‘Tolong kejar, perompak!) under section
6 of the Act but it does not show the truth of its contents. This implies that section 6 is not a hearsay exception.

Section 7

Section 7 as mentioned earlier is also to prove the relevancy of a fact and this section will be broken down into
five parts. Basically, the section provides for the relevancy of facts which:

i.                    Are the occasion of the relevant fact or facts in issue

ii.                  Are the case of the relevant fact or facts in issue

a.       Saw Thein Teck v R  – the accused was charged for dangerous driving and the court held that evidence
indicating that he was drunk at that time could be admitted under Section 7

iii.                Are the effect of relevant fact or facts in issue

a.       Yusufalli v State  – the court held that the imprint on a magnetic tape is the effect or consequence of the
relevant sound then it is relevant under Section 7

iv.                Constitutes the state of things under which the relevant facts or facts in issue happened

v.                  Afforded an opportunity for occurrence or transaction of the relevant fact or facts in issue

So to sum up section 7, there are five key parts of the section which you ought to remember, they are of course:

i.                    Occasion
ii.                  Cause

iii.                Effect

iv.                State of things

v.                 Opportunity for occurance

Chuah Chong Yen

A132934

0 Comments

Electronic Evidence
11/9/2013

1 Comment
 

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence is evidence that derived from material source or substance. Section 3 of Evidence Act
1950 defined “evidence” as all documents produced for the inspection of the court, and such documents are
called documentary evidence.  Documentary evidence can be categorized into two which are:

a.      Primary Evidence

b.      Secondary Evidence

Primary evidence is the actual or original writing or non-testimonial  evidence sought to be admitted whereas
secondary evidence is a copy of original document or non-testimonial evidence. Just like other evidence,
documentary evidence must be material and relevant and subject to the best evidence rule that requires the
original document to be produced unless there is a good reason not to do so.

Photographs, tape recordings, films, letters, bills, contracts, and printed emails are all forms of documentary
evidence. The proposition is that no document can be admitted as evidence without some proof of authentication.
Thus, for these documents to be admitted in court, it has to be properly identified and authenticated .

So How Authentication of Document is Done in Civil Proceedings?

Generally, authentication in the eyes of evidence is the process by which documentary evidence and other
physical evidence is proven to be genuine, and not forgery. In other words, it is a rule that requires evidence to
be sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. It must be genuine in
order for it to be admissible in court. These are among the common methods of authentication of a document:

1.      A witness who is present during the signing of the document can identify and attest to the existence of the
document

2.      Non-expert witness  who is familiar with the handwriting or signature of the person who sign the document
can also testify that document

3.      An expert- a document examiner who can compare handwriting samples and give his opinion regarding the
document

4.      By so-called "trier of fact", in which the jury or the judge would compare a known example of a signature
with the signature on a disputed document

5.      Records of business transactions can be identified and authenticated by the custodian of the records

6.      Certified copies of public records, official documents, and newspapers are self-authenticating documents
that do not require outside authentication to be admitted as court evidence

7.      Ancient documents also do not require outside authentication to be used as evidence. When presented with
a corroborating circumstances or possession, ancient documents can be admitted as evidence in a trial if it can
be shown to be more than twenty years old, and found in a place and condition that a document of that age
would likely be found.

However, there are also several documents which do not require validation to be considered as original
documents. These documents have been generally deemed to be self-authenticating documents. Self-
authenticating documents or documents that do not require outside authentication are the following:

1. Acknowledge documents to prove receipt of such

2. Some commercial paper and related documents

3. Certificates of business records

4. Certified copies of public records

5. Newspapers

6. Official documents

7. Periodicals

8. Trade inscriptions

Why Document Authentication is Important?

The reason is quite simple because if the document is properly authenticated, it can provide the court with
necessary information and help a judge to evaluate the case. Besides that, proper documents also provide
resoultion of the issue in question and in civil litigations, documentary evidence is an important part in
determining the outcome of a case.

Case

Hanafi bin Mat Hassan  v Public Prosecutor [2006] 4 MLJ 134

Facts:

The accused was charged in the High Court with rape and murder of the deceased on 7 October 2000. It was
alleged that the accused raped and murdered the deceased while she was travelling in the bus driven by the
accused. Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the evidence presented by the prosecution was
inadmissible because (i) the bus ticket produced by a ticket machine in a bus belonging to the bus company of
the accused was inadmissible for failure of the prosecution to tender a certificate pursuant to section 90A(2) of
the Evidence Act 1950; (ii) summary of the DNA profiling result prepared by prosecution witness was
inadmissible for non-compliance with section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950. The court dismissed the appeal and
found the accused guilty for both rape and murder.

Issue:

Whether the bus ticket and DNA profiling result admissible as electronic evidence?

Before any evidence produced by electronic means can be admissible as evidence in court, these sections must
be complied with-

Section 90A(1) of the Evidence Act 1950 states that any document produced by computer in the course of its
ordinary use shall be admissible as evidence, whether or not the person tendering the same is the maker of such
document.

Section 90A(2) of the Evidence Act 1950 provides that a certificate must be signed by a person responsible for
the management of the operation of that computer or for the conduct of the activities for which the computer was
used. If the person responsible for that computer is present then the certificate is not required as oral testimony
of that person is sufficient and shall be admissible as evidence.

Section 90A(4) of the Evidence Act 1950 provides for the presumption of the computer referred to in certificate
was in good working condition throughout the material part of the period during which the documnt was
produced.
Section 90A(6) of the Evidence Act 1950 deals with the admissibility of a document which was not produced by a
computer in the course of its ordinary use and is only deemed to be so.

In this case, there was evidence to show that the ticket machine was a computer by virtue of section 3 of the
Evidence Act 1950 and that the ticket was produced in the ordinary course of business of the ticket machine.
Therefore, the learned trial judge had dispensed with the need to tender in evidence the certificate required by
section 90A(2). The presumption in section 90A(6) was sufficient even in the absence of evidence to show that
the ticket was produced by the machine in the ordinary course of its business. Subsequently, the evidence shows
that the ticket machine was in good working condition. The issue of the tickets by the machine shows that it was
operating properly in all respects at all material times. With proof of these two elements whatever is presumed to
exist pursuant to section 90A(4) has been proved by way of oral evidence. The failure of the prosecution to
tender a certificate pursuant to section 90A(2) is irrelevant in this case. Hence, the issue of inadmissibility of the
bus ticket as electronic evidence should now be unquestionable.

The DNA result was produced by more than one computer which are the analysers and a thermalcycler. This
raises the question of whether all the computers involved or only one of them and, if so, which one, must be
proved for the purposes of section 90A. Pursuant to section 3 where two or more computers carry out the
function of recording, storing, processing, retrieving or producing any information, as in this case, in combination
or in succession or otherwise howsoever conjointly, they shall be treated as a single computer. What is relevant
for the prosecution is not the document produced by the computer but the statements contained in it. Thus what
requires to be established in order to comply with section 90A is the condition of the computers that produced the
results as contained in the DNA result and not the computer itself. The evidence showing that the DNA analyser
and the thermalcycler were running at their optimum level was sufficient to prove the requirements of section
90A(4) in the absence of a certificate having been tendered. In order to comply with the requirements of s 90A
the tendering in evidence of a certificate prescribed in section 90A(2) will ordinarily render a document produced
by a computer in the course of its ordinary use admissible in evidence. In this case no certificate was tendered in
evidence with regard to the admissibility of the statements in DNA result. Oral evidence is therefore required to
establish the condition precedent in section 90A(1) in order to show that the statements in DNA result were
produced by computers in the ordinary course of their use.

Challenge in the authentication and reliability of the electronic evidence                      

Main characteristic of document; should contain and convey information. Computer or electronic evidence now
plays an important role as a method of proof. With the advancement and modernisation of the technologies, a lot
of information can be recorded, stored, processed, retrieved or conveyed using electronic means. Computer
evidence or evidence in electronic format has been accepted by court in Malaysia after the amendment had been
made in our Evidence Act in 1993. Computer evidence in Malaysia is admissible as documentary evidence and
primary evidence. However, there is one biggest disadvantage of the evidence by electronic means which is, it is
easily tempered. Things will be more complicated if the case involve cyber-related cases and various
jurisdictions. Certain countries have updated their technology and developed certain measures to deal with
evidence derived from electronics means. In India for instance, a proposal was made to develop a national digital
forensic response model for efficient response to incidents of cyber crimes. This model focuses on processing
digital evidence during an investigation process. In Malaysia, we still lack of expert in computer forensic.
Technology can change the landscape and the method of proving computer evidence. Technology changes very
rapidly and we need to cope with it. Therefore, the problem of inadequacy in the laws and lack of technological
advancement need to be addressed by our country so that more complicated cases can be deal with.

Prepared by,

Sarah Shaqeena Binti Abdullah  (A132959)

Norehan Binti Asmaran  (A132958)

1 Comment

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
11/9/2013

0 Comments
 
Prepared by: 
Sarah Safia binti Kamal Fasha (A132962)
Nur Azweena binti Azhar (A133244)

0 Comments

Types of Evidence
11/7/2013

2 Comments
 

Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence is sometimes referred to as indirect evidence. This evidence often just strongly suggests
a certain fact, but does not completely prove it. Like direct evidence, there are several types of circumstantial
evidence. Threatening comments and differential treatment prior to a crime are typically considered to be
circumstantial evidence, along with a suspect's behavior after a crime. Additionally, witnesses and forensic
evidence are also sometimes considered to be circumstantial.

Discriminatory or threatening comments uttered toward an individual before a crime is committed are one
common type of circumstantial evidence. This can include such things as slanderous comments or threats
uttered to either the victim or a third party. An individual who declared he wanted to kill a person just one week
before that person's murder, for example, may be investigators' number one suspect. Simply uttering these
words, however, does not prove that he murdered the victim. This evidence is circumstantial, since these words
may have simply been uttered in anger, with no intention of actually following through.

Another type of circumstantial evidence deals with how a victim was treated prior to a crime. An individual who
treated an assault victim poorly, for example, may be investigated by police. A person who seemed obsessed
with or stalked a woman may also be investigated for her rape. Although these individuals both treated the
victims differently than other people, this evidence is considered circumstantial.

The way a certain individual, or suspect, acts after a crime is committed is another example of circumstantial
evidence. A good example of this is the individual who spends an unusually large amount of money after a
robbery. Another example involves a suspect who seems overly nervous while being questioned after a murder.
This evidence is circumstantial, since he may be nervous because he committed the crime, but he also may be
nervous simply because he is being questioned for a heinous crime.

Eye witness accounts are sometimes considered to be circumstantial evidence as well. A witness, who sees a
suspect standing over a victim with a murder weapon, although seemingly damning evidence, is considered to be
circumstantial evidence, for example. The suspect could have merely stumbled upon the scene and accidentally
picked up the weapon. Corroborating evidence, such as another witness who saw him commit the crime, would
often be needed to get a conviction.

Although many people believe that forensic evidence is direct evidence, it is often thought of as circumstantial
evidence. Blood analysis, DNA analysis, and fingerprinting can be helpful to catching the perpetrator of the crime.
It often needs other corroborating evidence, however, to support it.

Direct Evidence

In law, direct evidence is that which proves or disproves innocence without requiring inference on the part of the
judge or jury. There are several different types of direct evidence, including witness testimony, audio or video
recordings, and documentation. Some forms of evidence, such as DNA samples, may be considered direct
evidence only in certain cases.

Eyewitness testimony is one of the most common types of direct evidence. If a witness sees or hears a criminal
act, he can relate the events to the best of his ability. In general, courts assume that a witness is an objective
party who can be relied upon to relate the events as they happened, without requiring the court to make an
inference as to what happened. Visual testimony from a witness, such as watching the defendant shoot a victim,
is usually considered the most reliable form of direct evidence. If a witness only hears a gunshot, he or she
cannot directly testify as to who shot the gun, and therefore may be giving circumstantial, rather than direct,
evidence.

Though witness testimony is one of the most frequently used types of direct evidence, it is not always fully
reliable. Witnesses may have biases that can affect their testimony, or may have difficulty remembering the exact
sequence of events due to stress or shock. Judges and juries must determine the reliability and objectivity of the
witness when considering how to weigh direct evidence from an eyewitness.

More reliable forms of direct evidence include audio and video recordings. Since a tape recorder or video camera
cannot have a bias, the objectivity of this type of evidence is usually unquestionable. Surveillance tapes, wiretap
recordings, and even cell phone recordings can all serve as a direct form of objective evidence that establishes
what actually happened during a crime. In some cases, however, recordings may be inadmissible as evidence if
they are obtained illegally; for instance, in California, it is sometimes illegal to make a recording of a person
without his or her knowledge. In order to make sure that recordings can be used, lawyers and legal officials must
take care to follow all applicable laws of evidence gathering.

Documentation used as direct evidence might include emails, letters, or diary entries. These are generally only
considered direct if they contain the actual crime, such as an email that includes death threats. If a perpetrator
confesses his or her crimes via written correspondence, or a witness details an account of a crime in writing, it
may also be considered a form of factual evidence.

In paternity cases, DNA evidence can serve as a form of direct, factual evidence. DNA is widely considered a
reliable method of establishing paternity, and thus does not merely infer that a child is related by blood to a father
or mother, but serves as objective proof of the fact. In many criminal cases, however, DNA evidence such as
fingerprints or blood matches is considered circumstantial. While it may prove that a person was present at a
crime scene, it does not objectively show whether or not the person in question committed a crime.

Legal Evidence

Legal evidence is material that can be used in pursuit of a legal case. The evidence is brought to court for the
purpose of demonstrating or refuting a point related to a case. There are many different types of evidence, and
legal systems in most nations have strict rules regarding admissibility of evidence, evidence collection, and
related matters. The goal of carefully regulating evidence is to ensure that only evidence that is valid and relevant
is brought to court.

A classic example of legal evidence is testimonial evidence from witnesses, which can include direct evidence
about an event someone saw firsthand, as well as indirect evidence, like a professional opinion. Witnesses can
make unreliable evidence because they can have imperfect memories or may have been influenced by things
that occurred between the event and the trial. Attorneys are careful about how they question and interact with
witnesses to ensure that the evidence provided will be of the highest quality possible.

Another type of evidence is documentary evidence, including paper documentation of anything relating to the
trial. This can include documents such as contracts, telephone bills, and personal letters, as well as other written
materials. Recordings in other mediums such as photography, audio, and video are also forms of documentary
evidence. This evidence can again be direct, as in the case of a contract brought in to demonstrate the facts
associated with a contract dispute, or indirect, such as a letter that may demonstrate the character of the
defendant.

Demonstrative evidence is legal evidence that is designed to demonstrate or illuminate some aspect of a case. It
includes things like models, charts, and other displays that help the jury understand the facts of the case. When
cases are complex, seeing the details of the case walked through in a model can be useful for some jurors. For
example, a computer animation could provide an overview of events at a crime scene as described by witnesses.

Real evidence is physical material from a crime. This type of legal evidence includes hairs and fibers, weapons,
and other physical objects. Real evidence may be subjected to analysis in a lab as part of an investigation.

Rules of legal evidence state that the evidence must be relevant to the case and it must be presented in its
original form unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. Copies of evidence are not admitted due to
concerns about tampering. An exception might be a case where evidence is too fragile or has been destroyed
during testing, in which case a copied version may be accepted, as long as it is clearly labeled as such.

Prepared by,

Denesh A/L Munisviran

A133030

2 Comments
EVIDENCE; in the eyes of Forensics 
11/7/2013

4 Comments
 

Evidence can be categorized into many different types but for today, I really want to focus evidence in the views
of forensic. This is because not everyone know exactly what is forensic evidence. They just assumed that based
on the popular TV show : CSI. This kinds of knowledge should be spread around so that the public can be alert
and more understand about this matter. so let's begin now.
Evidence refers to information or objects that may be admitted into court for judges and juries to consider when
hearing a case. Evidence can come from varied sources — from genetic material or trace chemicals to dental
history or fingerprints. Evidence can serve many roles in an investigation, such as to trace an illicit substance,
identify remains or reconstruct a crime.

There are 8 types of Forensic Evidence roughly.

1. Forensic Anthropology and Forensic Dentistry

2. Controlled Substances
3. Digital Evidence and Forensics
4. Forensics DNA
5. Impression and Pattern Evidence
6. Forensic Pathology
7. Forensics Toxicology
8. Trade Evidence

 Forensic Anthropology and Forensic Dentistry

Forensic anthropologists examine "skeletonized" or otherwise compromised human remains to assess age,

gender, height and ancestry; identify injuries; and estimate the time since death. Examination of these remains
may give information that can assist investigators in identifying a victim.

Forensic dentists, or odontologists, examine the development, anatomy and any restorative dental corrections
of the teeth, such as fillings, to make a comparative identification of a person.

Bones and teeth are the most durable parts of the human body and may be the only recognizable remains in
cases of decomposition, fire scenes or mass fatalities, and can be used to identify an individual in such cases.
For example, when law enforcement officials find unidentified human remains such as teeth, this critical piece of
evidence may be the only resource investigators can use to compare to dental records of known missing persons
to determine the person's identity.

 Controlled Substances

Controlled substances are chemicals that have a legally recognized potential for abuse. They include “street
drugs” such as heroin or ecstasy and prescription drugs such as oxycodone. Detecting and identifying controlled
substances is a critical step in law enforcement's fight against drug-related crime and violence. Controlled
substances present law enforcement and criminal justice professionals with the following problems:

1. Large quantities of drug evidence are collected and submitted to crime laboratories, resulting in
backlogs. 
 2. New designer drugs emerge regularly, requiring crime laboratories to develop new analytical techniques
and spend more time on analysis. 
3. Many drugs are similar in appearance and properties, creating a high degree of difficulty in
distinguishing their exact identity.

 Digital Evidence and Forensics

Computers are used for committing crime, and, thanks to the burgeoning science of digital evidence forensics,
law enforcement now uses computers to fight crime. Digital evidence is information stored or transmitted in
binary form that may be relied on in court. It can be found on a computer hard drive, a mobile phone, a personal
digital assistant (PDA), a CD, and a flash card in a digital camera, among other places.

Digital evidence is commonly associated with electronic crime, or e-crime, such as child pornography or credit
card fraud. However, digital evidence is now used to prosecute all types of crimes, not just e-crime. For example,
suspects' e-mail or mobile phone files might contain critical evidence regarding their intent, their whereabouts at
the time of a crime and their relationship with other suspects. In 2005, for example, a floppy disk led investigators
to the BTK serial killer who had eluded police capture since 1974 and claimed the lives of at least 10 victims.

In an effort to fight e-crime and to collect relevant digital evidence for all crimes, law enforcement agencies are
incorporating the collection and analysis of digital evidence, also known as computer forensics, into their
infrastructure. Law enforcement agencies are challenged by the need to train officers to collect digital evidence
and keep up with rapidly evolving technologies such as computer operating systems.

 Forensics DNA

DNA collection and analysis gives the criminal justice field a powerful tool for convicting the guilty and
exonerating the innocent. About Forensic DNA provides general information on a wide range of topics. Only one-
tenth of a single percent of DNA (about 3 million bases) differs from one person to the next. Scientists can use
these variable regions to generate a DNA profile of an individual, using samples from blood, bone, hair, and other
body tissues and products.

In criminal cases, this generally involves obtaining samples from crime-scene evidence and a suspect, extracting
the DNA, and analyzing it for the presence of a set of specific DNA regions (markers). If the sample profiles don't
match, the person did not contribute the DNA at the crime scene. If the patterns match, the suspect may have
contributed the evidence sample.

DNA from crime scenes also can be compared to profiles stored in a database. Experience has shown that cold
case programs can solve a substantial number of violent crime cold cases, including homicides and sexual
assaults. Advances in DNA technologies have substantially increased the successful DNA analysis of aged,
degraded, limited, or otherwise compromised biological evidence. As a result, crime scene samples once thought
to be unsuitable for testing may now yield DNA profiles. Additionally, samples that previously generated
inconclusive DNA results may now be successfully analyzed.

 Impression and Pattern Evidences

One of the most common forms of evidence investigators may detect and collect at a crime scene is impression
and pattern evidence.

Impression evidence is created when two objects come in contact with enough force to cause an "impression."
Typically impression evidence is either two-dimensional — such as a fingerprint — or three-dimensional — such
as the marks on a bullet caused by the barrel of a firearm.
Pattern evidence may be additional identifiable information found within an impression. For example, an
examiner will compare shoeprint evidence with several shoe-sole patterns to identify a particular brand, model or
size. If a shoe is recovered from a suspect that matches this initial pattern, the forensic examiner can look for
unique characteristics that are common between the shoe and the shoeprint, such as tread wear, cuts or nicks. 

Impression and pattern evidence can help link a suspect or tool to a particular crime scene. New or improved
techniques to identify, collect, analyze and preserve impression and pattern evidence would greatly aid the
forensic community.

Latent fingerprints used in criminal investigations are often crucial pieces of evidence that can link a suspect to
a crime. Latent prints are typically collected from a crime scene by specialists trained in forensic science
techniques to reveal or extract fingerprints from surfaces and objects using chemical or physical methods. The
fingerprint images can then be photographed, marked up for distinguishing features by latent fingerprint
examiners, and used to search an automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS). An AFIS is a computer
system that stores fingerprint images in an organized, searchable data structure that is widely used by criminal
justice agencies to maintain databases of the fingerprints of individuals who are arrested or incarcerated.

Fingerprint databases typically contain rolled fingerprints from each finger ("tenprints") and fingerprints from the
whole hand with all the fingers extended in parallel ("slaps"). If an individual whose fingerprints are in an AFIS
encounters the criminal justice system again, a criminal investigator can search the AFIS to establish identity and
link the individual with a particular criminal record. If a criminal investigator matches a latent print to a fingerprint
in the AFIS, that individual may be linked to the crime under investigation.

An AFIS can also house repositories of latent fingerprints that remain unidentified, typically referred to as
an unsolved latent file (ULF). As new fingerprints are added to the AFIS, criminal investigators can search them
against the ULF collection in the hope of making a match. Matches happen regularly within one jurisdiction over
time, but how are unsolved latent fingerprints collected in one jurisdiction matched against a tenprint record
stored in the AFIS of another jurisdiction? Interoperability between two jurisdictions will determine whether
Jurisdiction A can search the database in Jurisdiction B to find a match. Maximizing AFIS interoperability can
help maximize the value of latent fingerprint evidence.

 Forensics Anthropology

Human remains are treated as a separate and unique type of forensic evidence. An autopsy of the remains is
completed to determine the cause and manner of any death that is violent, unusual or untimely. A forensic
pathologist will examine the human remains (post-mortem examination) and consider death scene findings. The
medical history of the individual may also be reviewed to help determine if the death was natural, accidental or
criminal. During the exam, the pathologist may recover critical evidence such as a bullet, which may help to
determine the cause and manner of death. Furthermore, the pathologist may identify a wound pattern that can be
matched to a weapon or can determine entry and exit wounds in deaths involving firearms and other projectiles.

To better equip forensic pathologists, more research is needed in the use of virtual autopsy as an alternative to
traditional post-mortem exams. More research is also needed to develop better methods to estimate time since
death and to determine the cause and manner of death, especially in children and the elderly. 

 Forensics Toxicology

Forensic toxicology is the analysis of biological samples for the presence of toxins, including drugs. The
toxicology report can provide key information as to the type of substances present in an individual and if the
amount of those substances is consistent with a therapeutic dosage or is above a harmful level. These results
can be used to make inferences when determining a substance's potential effect on an individual's death, illness,
or mental or physical impairment. For example, the results of a blood analysis from a driver involved in a car
accident can be used to determine if the individual was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Forensic toxicology is a continually advancing discipline. New drugs are always being developed, which creates
a constant need to design novel approaches for their detection. To rise to this challenge, new instrumentation is
being used and new detection methods are constantly in development.
  Trace Evidence

Fibers, hair, soil, wood, gunshot residue and pollen are only a few examples of trace evidence that may
be transferred between people, objects or the environment during a crime. Investigators can potentially link a
suspect and a victim to a mutual location through trace evidence. For example, a fiber sample obtained from a
suspect's person can be identified through scientific analysis as originating from a garment worn by the victim.
The analysis of the fiber evidence can help establish if the victim and suspect were in the same area. Trace
evidence examiners would greatly benefit from advancements in this forensic discipline. 

Ohh, need to remind all of you readers, this is a very basic and simple layman explanation regarding about this
matter. In order to understand more about Forensics Evidences, a lot of readings and research need to be done.
Luckily nowadays, we can get help from our dearest search engine that is the hardworking Google in order to get
more information about this matter. 

Now, enough about all this legal and "serious" matter. Being crazy-addicted to movies, i do call myself as
the *DIE-HARD-FAN-OF-MOVIES* I really enjoy waching movies, doesn't care what kind of genre it is
(preferable action, horror, cartoon, and com-rom) oh yess, com-rom means (COMEDY
ROMANTICS)..teehee..

so now, I have this new movies that using Evidence as their basic principle in making this movie. cool huh? and
to complete the coolness, this movie title is.... EVIDENCE!

This movie is about a detective that hunts down a killer through video footage shot by the victims of a massacre
at an abandoned gas station. The duration is 94 minutes and the director had done an amazing job in describing
the facts about psychopath in an intelligent way. The plots also were so detailed and coming together in a good
way. so hope you guys enjoy this movie.

And, remember : KNOWLEDGE CAN BE OBTAINED ANYWHERE, NOT NECESSARILY IN A CLOSED

ROOM THAT THE PEOPLE CALLED (CLASSROOM).

That's all, toodle-doo guyss ~~