"Evidence" generally means, in an award.
"Input" information that can influence the final judgment result in a rational way in the process. The rational way is here.
The third attractive concept. In the United States, "evidence" also has a professional legal meaning, especially in the trial.
Testimony and physical evidence, but this is a controversial definition. In the United States, fact-finders
Juries can test their observation of witnesses ("words and deeds").
Think about it. In the practical sense of the word "evidence", it is obviously "evidence". But the problem is
Furthermore, if you don't use a lot of preset concepts, observation and decision-making tools (such as logic)
Series, backward reasoning, practical tools, etc. ) knowledge base, it is impossible to conduct legal research on the observed phenomenon.
Processing and thinking. Therefore, the useful concept of evidence should not be limited to "losing the case", but should also
Include observing witness testimony and physical evidence. The "rationality" here is to put all the input and cognition.
Ability is applied to fact discovery, so that it can achieve the best discovery effect on things at a certain moment in the past, but
Then it comes to the conclusion that the rights and obligations are consistent with the original story.
In contrast, "evidence law" refers to the organization of evidence procedure, but not the organization of evidence procedure.
The way obviously depends on the nature of "evidence" and "rationality". Thus, the field of evidence law extends to me.
What scientists call "evidence" is the trace of past events, which is used in human decision-making process.
The way to deal with and rely on it, and the provisions of the legal rules according to the formal evidence procedure. So, what about the certificate
According to the law, it depends on and must deal with at least three things: the universal truth of human society and the related aspects of the nature of government.
And specific policies to help or hinder the pursuit of truth. I will go one by one.
Discuss these issues.
Universal Truth: Although human culture is mostly determined by society, cognitive ability is not the case. can
How force is developed and used may be different, but the potential cognitive ability of perception, processing and memory,
And the ability to relate to what is observed are all part of the human condition. Obviously, they
Different individuals in society are different, but they are generally embraced by all capable adults.
Yes Many tools used by human beings to help them understand their surroundings are the same. Mathematics and logic are not made up of
Location changes, such as utility function and cost curve. I'm going to put these epistemology
Ability and conventional tools are collectively called "rational tools". These rational tools enable people to understand and master.
Control the surrounding environment. They include simple deductive reasoning, generalization ability and retrospective reasoning (for a series of
Exploration of the interpretation of data points), understanding of causality, necessary conditions and sufficient conditions, and many
Other matters. These questions are all the contents of epistemology or epistemology, and the law of evidence is actually law.
Legal epistemology. I need to point out that in some discussions about the basis of evidence law, probability theory and
Epistemology makes a distinction. In a sense, this may be a useful distinction, but in my opinion, it is almost
Rate theory is just one of the rational tools to promote the pursuit of epistemological goals.
Cultural and social influences do play a role in basic rational tools at all levels. Two from
Individuals with different cultural backgrounds may experience the same emotional events, but they are suspicious based on their familiarity.
They will have a completely different understanding of the type and background knowledge of the event. Similarly, the logical process of error start.
The setting may be different, and the setting of cost-benefit and relative weight may also be different.
Frankly speaking, although many people think that there is universal human nature besides cognitive ability, I am right.
I'm not sure about this. There are many extensive discussions about universal sense of justice and universal human rights, but in the 20th century,
This is a century that makes those who regard "human nature" as kindness or care about the welfare of strangers feel ashamed. that
Yao, maybe economists are right in a sense, that is, people are pursuing (or should be imagined as chasing).
Seek self-interest, no matter what these interests should be. Obviously, people are really pursuing them.
Self-interest of oneself and family in property and medical care. Enjoy a peaceful life within the framework of the possibility of human prosperity.
Living is a universal desire, but it is hard to regard it as a dependence on the universality of human beings. Not only in the 20th century.
This is a disgrace to this view, and so is most recorded history. have just started
2 1 century shows that there is no big change from the Millennium history.
As I will explain in detail below, one of the main tasks of evidence law is to deal with and understand this fine collection.
Consider various factors and establish a dispute settlement mechanism that is in line with the interests of the same institution.
The arbitrariness of the government and its legal system: although there are many similarities in human nature, the human organization itself
The variables of lifestyle are almost infinite. The legal system is a key part of the government, which reflects the controversy.
Deep political theory of ultimate solution. Based on the political history of the United States, our founding fathers concluded that political power should
When scattered among the three branches of the government, each branch needs another branch or two to play its role.
This aims to offset the tendency of internal centralization and external expansion of almost all powers recognized by western observers.
Potential. In short, this is why we have the tradition of independent courts, which we think is a constraint on other governments.
Potential braking of the branch.
Of course, the government can build it in countless other ways. No matter what form of government you choose, it is more important.
What is important is that no matter what assumptions are taken as its basis, it will obviously affect the nature of its legal system, and then
It will affect the way of dispute resolution and evidence regulation.
Nevertheless, the nature of dispute settlement is unexpected. There are also in the west.
One misunderstanding is that the basic political thought of the Enlightenment is the most powerful support of modern western governments.
Political platforms are all related to rights and obligations. Hobbes, Locke and
Rousseau's point of view has many references, all of which emphasize this point. Rights and obligations are important, but
The more fundamental idea of the Enlightenment is an epistemological revolution, that is, there is an objectively known external existence.
The world of our thoughts; However, for Locke, Beckman, Hume and even Kant's epistemological works, this
However, there are few references to these two propositions, and they are far apart. This reverses the relationship between facts and rights/obligations.
Actual relationship. Facts exist before rights and obligations and are the decisive factors of rights and obligations. no
With accurate facts, rights and obligations lose their meaning. Think about the ownership of the clothes you wear.
This simple example. Your ownership of these clothes allows you the right to own, consume and dispose of them.
Some property, but suppose I ask you to return my clothes, that is, I insist that the clothes you are wearing are actually
It belongs to me. What would you do? You will find a referee and provide him with the information you bought, made and obtained.
Evidence of accepting or being given this controversial dress. If this effort is successful, the referee will be dismissed.
Give you those rights and force me to fulfill my corresponding obligations. The key point here is that these rights and
Obligation depends on what facts will be ascertained and what conclusions will be drawn from them. The importance of this point cannot be overemphasized.
Exaggerated. Efforts to link the rule of law with the actual situation in the real world anchor rights in the knowable.
Interests and obligations, and get rid of capricious and capricious domination. This is the principle of relevance and substance.
Reading is very important to the construction of legal system. They relate the legal system to the accuracy of facts.
On the cornerstone.
This is indeed a common phenomenon. Without knowing the actual situation of things, not only
Rights or obligations cannot be pursued, and policy choices cannot be made. Therefore, even under the uncertain governance mode,
In this case, we also find that the law of evidence is universal. Of course, people may think that the facts are the most accurate or
The significance of the most adequate method to determine and what policies can offset the accuracy of facts lies in these problems.
Reasonable difference.
Importance of policy issues: Designers of legal system are faced with numerous policy choices. Some policies involve
Fact accuracy pursues consistency, but many of them are contrary to it. Please note that I use the short-term term "policy issue"
Language should conform to various interests pursued by society. Therefore, it contains some problems that can be called "axiology"
Title. However, not all policies implemented by the government are moral; Many policies are quite practical and utilitarian.
Yes In fact, most of the policies implemented by the government may be practical and utilitarian. In moral and utilitarian politics
Differentiating policies are indeed reasonable, but they are part of a larger interest category pursued by the government.
Point, and can be effectively combined when thinking about evidence law. Another thing I could have done, but I didn't do it.
Differentiation is the distinction between the sources of policy problems. Some policy sources are just goals that all governments will face.
Quasi-problems include what we misleadingly call the general use of police power in the United States, that is, supervision.
The use of state power that affects health, safety and welfare. In contrast, in any particular country, regardless of the adoption
What constitutional form is adopted and other policy sources are clearly stipulated by the Constitution. Some critics will be constitutional.
It is also reasonable to choose this issue from other policy issues. However, this distinction does not help to understand.
Evidence law, so I'm too lazy to make this distinction. The law of evidence is really doing what the constitution entrusts.
Love, but from the highest level of general principles, and this legal evidence to shape the constitutional text that no one pursues.
Ben's interest is one thing.
Now I turn to some policy issues that must be arranged in the evidence law.
The pursuit of factual accuracy. People can reasonably assume that nature is based on innate epistemological ability.
The reasoning process will go quite well, so it should usually be followed when pursuing the accuracy of facts. In that way
However, this may lead people to make mistakes again. In this case, the rules of evidence can be corrected.
This systematic mistake. This explains that rule 403 of the federal rules of evidence authorizes the exclusion of those who may lead to
Reasons for misleading or unfairly prejudicing evidence. This also forms the basis of other rules, such as personality and
The limitation of evidence and the requirement that witnesses can only testify according to personal knowledge. And under what circumstances?
The next person will make systematic mistakes, which probably depends mainly on culture.
Precision value. The accuracy of the facts is of course the most important result we want, but it is by no means us.
The only result I want. This comes at a price, sometimes too high. Excessive pursuit
A legal system that pursues accurate facts may destroy the best social circle that the legal system is committed to cultivating.
Conditions. A dispute worth only one yuan, if you go to court, it will take 1000 yuan to get a fact.
Accurate conclusion, then probably should not be solved through litigation. Such a lawsuit is likely to destroy society.
It will benefit the whole society and hinder the settlement of disputes. Of course, it's hard to say where the cost boundary is, and it is.
Strictly speaking, it depends on the local concept. I will discuss this question more in the second lecture.
Incentive value. Fact accuracy not only competes with cost, but also is the reasonable pursuit of the government.
Other policies are also competitive. The list of such policies is long and depends on cultural factors.
Immunity law can cultivate and protect many social relations (spouse relations, legal relations, medical relations and religious relations).
Religious relations, government relations, etc. ). Litigation after the accident should not hinder risk reduction (after-the-fact remedy)
Rules). Compared with litigation, people may prefer to mediate disputes, so Chen is in the process of mediation
Exclude from evidence. Encouraging mediation is also a reason for not reducing litigation costs. Public litigation * * *
The more subsidies, the more lawsuits and the less private negotiations. There are other policies that can be implemented.
In the United States, considering the need to standardize police investigation behavior, we have set up many exclusion rules. Rules of evidence
It may also encourage or hinder certain types of litigation. Also in the United States, in the past,
We believe that the enthusiasm of rape victims to report crimes has been severely hit. In order to correct this situation, we created.
In order to reduce the abuse of this personal information, evidence rules are introduced to avoid its possible exposure in court.
Overall judicial considerations will also have an impact on evidence law, although the exact impact of this variable is often difficult to determine.
From a more open and practical point of view. Some people think that the restriction of unfair prejudice evidence not only reflects
The concern for accuracy also reflects the concern for humiliation, just like the rape relevance rule. Yes, before.
The limitation of evidence of behavior and inclination also partly reflects the belief that individuals should not be subject to past behaviors. get through
Hearing rules reflect the value of witnesses who oppose your oath to some extent.
Risk of error. An error-free legal system is impossible. It is important to realize this.
There are two types of mistakes: one is misjudgment of the plaintiff (including finding innocent and guilty), which we call.
Type I error or positive error; The second is the misjudgment of the defendant (including the acquittal of the guilty), which we call wrong judgment.
The first kind of error or negative error. Resource allocation and other decisions will affect the relationship between these two types of errors.
Ordinary people may question the meaning of these two kinds of mistakes, but the construction of legal system must take this into account.
These two kinds of mistakes. In the United States, we try to balance the mistakes made by the original defendant and reduce the total number of mistakes.
Quantity, in order to build a civil lawsuit. On the contrary, the criminal justice procedure aims at reducing the possibility of wrongful conviction,
This is at the expense of tolerating more mistakes of acquittal. Although the problem is complicated, these
This view explains the superior evidence standard of civil cases and the conviction of criminal cases to a great extent, which undoubtedly proves that
Standard. In civil cases, no matter what kind of mistakes will cause the same improper allocation of resources. If the plaintiff
If a citizen (defendant) wrongly wins a judgment of $500, he must miss $500. If the defendant
If a citizen (plaintiff) wins the ruling that he/she does not owe $500, his/her rights will be wrongly deprived.
I have 500 dollars. From an analytical point of view, these two situations are the same. In contrast, in criminal cases,
In the case, in the United States, we think that the wrong conviction is more harmful than the wrong acquittal, so we passed the request.
Hard evidence increases the difficulty of conviction. We insist on doing this, even if it is possible (but by no means certain)
The number of false acquittals has increased, and even the total number of errors has increased. I'll talk more about this question tomorrow.
Problems, and put forward some questions about the realization of these simple ideas in practice.
Various policy issues. There are many other related questions that must be answered by the designers of legal system.
Answer. The most important thing is to assign responsibilities to the various roles in the legal drama. These questions include: should the trial
Should it be carried out in stages as popular in Europe, or in one step as in the United States? judge of first instance
How much discretion should you have and to what extent should the parties control the trial process? submit to trial
What is the relationship between the judge and the appeal judge? In the court of appeal, should we have a new trial, or just a retrial?
Review legal mistakes? Is it reasonable to treat small civil cases and large commercial cases differently? criminal case
How to treat it?
The discussion of the above issues shows the foundation and significance of the evidence law. I intend to do it at four o'clock now.
Analysis shows that three points are very important for understanding the foundation and significance of any legal body, and the fourth point is clear.
It is important to think clearly about the law of evidence. They include:
1. The difference between law in books and law in action.
2. On the one hand, it is the relationship between litigation (procedural law) and evidence law, on the other hand, it is their relationship with substantive law.
The relationship between them, especially their relationship with substantive law rather than differences.
3. Economics or as we Americans say: There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you were here
If you spend a dollar (or a dollar) for one purpose, you can't spend it for another.
Other places.
4. Whether trial is an ideal way or an improper way. Is the purpose of the legal system to encourage trials or to encourage tone?
Solution? What should it be designed for?
I will discuss these variables and their meanings one by one.
1. The law in the book; The law is at work The constitution was promulgated and legislation was passed.
Administrative officials issue orders and instructions, courts make decisions, and people think that the rest of us are more or less.
I obeyed. Unfortunately (perhaps fortunately), life is not that simple. When the constitution or the law is in any
When the multi-party decision-making process is passed by voting, there will be many understandings of the meaning of legal language. Some are standing
Lawmakers may vote for the passage of the law, although they think it is still unsatisfactory (even
Go too far); Other legislators may vote against the law for the same reason.
There may also be serious differences on the exact meaning or function of specific terms. One may think that
Legal language has some implied meanings, and others may think it has different implied meanings. Abstract writing
French often can't solve the problem of the meaning of those words. Legal language often deliberately leaves ambiguity,
Because legislators can't agree on its exact meaning, or because they can foresee a specific problem.
All possible situations always feel inadequate, which further aggravates this difficulty.
In the United States, there is a growing complexity of separation of powers. Bao, legislation is a matter for the legislature.
Including the evidence laws of most States, but it is the job of the court to make the law effective. The judge's use of the legislature
There may be different understandings of the meaning of their language, and their institutional concerns will be different. Therefore, the law
The application of law by the court may be related to the idealized meaning of law in the personal intention of the legislature or legislators.
It's different.
The potential unique structure of evidence law intensifies this uncertainty. The emergence of evidence law, in
Providing necessary and sufficient conditions for the operation of rules is very similar to rules in this sense. But an important part of evidence law.
Only the responsibility and discretion are simply allocated, which is entirely because the relevant issues are related to treaty rules.
It is too complicated. Perhaps the most important aspect of evidence law-relevance-belongs to this category.
Make love. It is necessary to state a priori knowledge about the relevance of most of the evidence presented in any particular trial.
Necessary and sufficient conditions are impossible. These decisive factors will inevitably be related to the uniqueness of each trial.
And it is impossible to explain it sentence by sentence in advance (how to distinguish an absent person?
A known witness will lie about an unknown topic? )。 Therefore, the law of evidence puts the responsibility on someone-
Parties or judges-decide what evidence to provide and provide evidence according to fairly general guiding principles.
According to. In the United States, relevant evidence is defined as evidence that can increase or decrease the true probability of key facts.
Evidence, but actually did not specify when this condition can be met.
The last factor that may lead to the difference between the law in books and the law in action is the law of evidence.
Some fields must try to place completely opposite principles or dynamics. This may lead to some parts of the law.
Reach an agreement, and the other part will overturn the agreement. This situation in American evidence law
Two important examples are hearsay evidence rule and evidence rule against character and inclination. Hearsay evidence rule
People agree to exclude hearsay evidence, but for centuries, exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule have been increasing.
In civil cases, agreements to exclude hearsay evidence are rarely fulfilled, even in criminal cases.
It is also often adopted. Similarly, the evidence law stipulates the exclusion of character and tendency evidence, but it is open to its adoption.
The road is smooth.
2. The relationship between substantive law and procedural law. Substantive law is sometimes considered to be related to evidence.
There is a big difference between (and procedural law), but it is misleading. In fact, these two laws are complex and interactive.
Have a relationship. In the United States, this is particularly obvious because of the great significance of protecting constitutional rights.
Chu, and become the object of interest law research, but this view is also applicable to general evidence matters. The highest in America
The court's ruling has expanded and strengthened individual rights, which is regarded as imposing great restrictions on police and prosecutors.
However, the legal system has not been greatly disturbed by these rulings. These systems are full of vitality.
Infinite adaptability, so it can and does respond to society with unpredictable and surprising adaptability.
Change. Therefore, the "reform" of the dynamic process can't be realized by having only wishes without expected results.
Discrete measures are enforced. An important aspect of this dynamic phenomenon
On the surface, substantive changes in law can actually dilute any procedural opinions from courts or legal reformers.
Innovation.
An example of this in the United States involves the amendment of Article 4 of the Constitution, which restricts unreasonable search and seizure.
Keith. Suppose the police want to stop the car and make a surprise inspection of the crime; But the court ruled that Article 1 of the Constitution
The four amendments require the police to have a reasonable criminal basis before stopping a vehicle. stand
In order to make this court's order actually invalid today, the legal authorities only need to expand the criminal law to include stricter driving requirements.
Beg. In essence, the legislature can legislate for approaching driving without violating criminal laws and regulations (such as crossing the middle)
Center line, too close to the front car, don't turn on the turn signal early, etc. ). If the legislature passes
After this kind of law, the police can actually stop any vehicle by following a car until the driver.
Violated one of the laws governing driving. This interception is based on the so-called "reasonable basis", but this legislation
Will greatly expand the potential sources of reasonable basis, so as long as the police want to stop the vehicle at any time, every
No matter how hard the court tries to ban this process, people will be stopped. Similarly, if the government does not do so,
If you can't intercept specific information on a reasonable basis, you will often turn to asking individuals to keep the letter that the government wants.
Information records, and leak these records to the government.
This is common in evidence law and procedural law. The most obvious example is substance, which is composed of entities.
The direct decision of law has a deeper purpose. By changing the elements of the cause of action, the legislature can formulate the cause of action according to these causes of action.
Claims become easier or more likely. Is it allowed to verbally prove the meaning of the contract terms?
The United States is called the "oral evidence rule"-which obviously affects the evidence system. It is also obvious that,
Just like the "self-evident" function in tort law, it is required that a specific contract must be concluded in writing.
Anti-fraud laws usually apply to the principle of evidence.
Just as the substantive law can affect the evidence procedure, the evidence law can also affect the substantive law. Such an example
A lot. Exclusion rules usually increase litigation costs, while adoption rules usually reduce litigation costs. Privileged
In most cases, the cost of litigation increases, which leads to the increase of law enforcement power. Brief of hearsay evidence
Cultural adoption makes it easier to prove (although it may also reduce reliability), and so on. Evidence discovery rule
It can greatly affect the motivation of the parties to form and find evidence. Individual rules, such as rape-related rules.
Then, it can affect the difficulty of the case being proved. The distribution of burden of proof can encourage or hinder specificity.
The formation of the cause of action, and so on. Similarly, we will spend most of our time discussing this category in more depth tomorrow.
question
There is also an interactive relationship between substantive law and evidence law, which we should pay attention to. Zaimei
China, but China may not be like this, because everything in the United States may fall into litigation, so the evidence
It is the basis for lawyers to do anything. Wills, criminal cases (judgments depend in part on the contents of records),
Anti-monopoly, business work, everything. Evidence is related to other areas of law and all laws.
The worst thing in a transaction is to get into a lawsuit. In litigation, a key variable is what can be proved.
Ming. Therefore, every lawyer, no matter how far away from the court, must go to court.
People consider factors, that is to say, we should pay attention to the rules of evidence before litigation, so that once litigation occurs, it will
Important facts can be proved. For example, archival materials must be properly preserved and conform to the acceptable form.
Requirements.
3. Economic factors. In America, we have a proverb: "There is no such thing as a free lunch", which means,
If someone "invites" you to lunch, he may want to talk to you about something or invite you back. whatever
Theoretical basis and significance of evidence law
What do you think of this? "There is no such thing as a free lunch" is the best description of the government. The government is influenced by it.
Restricted by the economic situation, the economy is limited. Theoretically, the government can do many valuable things.
In love, they can only choose some of them to do. If resources are used for a certain purpose, there is nothing.
There are no resources to do other things, but in general, there are too many different "things" to do.
Give them money. Similarly, private resources are limited, although they are hardly consumed.
Limited.
When considering the litigation system, the limited resource limitation is a crucial consideration. Resources in
The distribution within the scope of the whole government interests, including the operation of the legal system, requires difficult choices. I'll
Give a dramatic example. The investment in criminal justice is obviously the same as that in other social welfare fields.
So strong. If the government supports more judges and police, or provides funds for the poor to hire lawyers, then
Yao said that resources for economic development or medical research will be reduced. The police face this problem every day.
Class problem. Faced with the increase of crime, they must constantly decide how to allocate their limited resources. The police should have come in
Should this part of the city patrol that area? They should concentrate on cracking down on economic crimes and violence.
Crime, or focus on combating fraud? In the process of criminal justice, it is likely to be the same as in the same process.
There is a competitive relationship between investors in different parts of the sequence. If the government supports more judges, it can only support them.
Fewer cops.
The influence of economic factors has further expanded and intensified. For example, consider the current situation in China.
A very important issue for you is the right to hire a lawyer. If the active participation of defense lawyers increases
The total amount of time spent on trial will obviously be less, because it can be used to judge the total number of cases.
Time is limited. In short, with the increase of the average cost of cases, the total number of cases that can be tried will decrease.
Less. This in turn means that effective lawyer consultation will reduce the number of convictions or cause the government to turn around.
Other means of law enforcement.
A similar situation exists in civil cases, but there are subtle differences. Although the problem is complicated, the people
The ideal number of civil proceedings may be different from that of criminal proceedings. If a civil lawsuit
With the reduction of costs, people can predict that the number of lawsuits will increase. In a sense, this is an openness.
Interests; Admittedly, in your country or our country, it is difficult to obtain, cost and litigation procedures.
Procrastination is usually regarded as a problem that needs to be corrected. However, they also have positive effects, especially in communication.
But they encourage the settlement of disputes. What really shocked some people is that in the United States, even most criminal cases
The case was resolved through private consultation between the defendant and the government, that is, plea bargaining.
Absolutely.
This leads to my fourth argument.
4. The trial of the ideal model and the trial of the embodiment of social collapse. As I want to point out, the law of evidence
Its significance goes far beyond the trial itself. However, judging from the actual situation and public mentality, evidence law and trial
The sentences are closely related. Moreover, western trials are often idealized and respected. Part of the reason is
This is the role of jury in our political theory and self-concept; Part of the reason is the rule of law.
Glorious (I add, this is well-deserved), the trial concretized the public dialectics.
I wonder to what extent the same is true in China. The formulation of evidence law focuses on its operation in trial.
Use, although this is obvious, but in the sense of consequence theory, how people look at the trial is ok.
Influence people to think about what is the ideal evidence rule.
No matter what kind of trial view a person has, he will grasp the relationship between trial view and evidence law.
Some ideas. In the United States, it is possible if people accept the idealized and beautified view of trial by the media.
I want to shape the purpose of the rules of evidence to further openly defend the rule of law and human rights. Then you should give it to
Criminal defendants and the "weak" in civil proceedings have more room for manoeuvre. The defendant's right of final statement shall be
Protected, etc.
Even if the rule of law should be honored (I think so), whether the trial should be honored is not.
I'm not sure. For all trial dramas, the trial reflects the weakness of the rule of law. The trial took place in
Civil or criminal complaints about illegal acts, and both parties cannot reach an agreement on the settlement of the dispute.
To. Therefore, the trial is morbid in a sense. The trial will consume resources, otherwise
Can make better use of it in a more constructive way (although it is also true to obtain facts in a correct or other way)
An important condition for prosperity). From a higher conceptual level, the nature of the dispute itself in ontology
There may still be reasonable differences on this issue. Is the dispute mainly between individuals? Or do they still have society?
Sexually
I ask these questions here, not to answer them, but to further illustrate this point in the Evidence Law.
The theoretical basis and significance of this deceptive straightforward title have many profound hidden meanings.
question