admissibility

简明释义

英[ədˌmɪsəˈbɪləti]美[ədˌmɪsəˈbɪləti]

n. 可容许；有入场的资格

英英释义

单词用法

同义词

反义词

例句

1.On October 29, 2015, the Arbitral Tribunal rendered an award on jurisdiction and admissibility.

2015年10月29日，仲裁庭作出管辖权和可受理性问题裁决。

2.Critics' concerns include lax rules for the admissibility of evidence and inadequate appeal procedures.

批评者对证据可取性的不严谨准则和上诉程序的不足等问题存有种种忧虑。

3.This paper considers the exponential admissibility and stabilization of switched linear singular systems.

研究了切换线性广义系统的指数容许性与镇定性问题。

4.In this paper is also presented a discussion on the characteristics of a new constrained compression estimation and its admissibility.

此外，还对一种新的约束压缩估计的性质进行了讨论，并从整体上论述了这批有偏估计的容许性。

5.This study concerns admissibility problems for periodically time-varying descriptor systems.

研究了广义周期时变系统的允许性问题。

6.The admissibility of the algorithm is proved and some new admissibility results are obtained.

本文证明了该算法的可采纳性，得到了一些新的可采纳性结果。

7.In this paper, we consider the admissibility of linear estimates of regression coefficients in growth curve model.

本文讨论增长曲线模型回归系数的线性估计的容许性。

8.A few courts have followed Ferebee's broader view of admissibility.

一些法院一直效仿“费瑞比”一案被广泛接受的观点。

9.In this case, the admissibility of hearsay evidence is a crucial issue.

在这个案件中，传闻证据的可采性是一个关键问题。

10.The lawyer challenged the admissibility of the confession obtained under duress.

律师质疑在压力下获得的供词的可采性。

11.Before the trial, the judge reviewed the admissibility of witness testimonies.

在审判之前，法官审查了证人证言的可采性。

12.The court will determine the admissibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution.

法庭将决定检方提出的证据的可采性。

13.The defense attorney filed a motion to exclude the evidence based on its admissibility.

辩护律师提交动议，要求排除基于其可采性的证据。

作文

In the realm of law, the concept of admissibility plays a pivotal role in determining whether evidence can be considered valid in court. The admissibility (可采性) of evidence is subject to various rules and standards that aim to ensure fairness and integrity in legal proceedings. Understanding these rules is crucial for legal professionals, as they can significantly influence the outcome of a case.To illustrate the importance of admissibility, consider a scenario where a defendant is accused of theft. The prosecution may present a witness who claims to have seen the defendant at the scene of the crime. However, if the witness's testimony was obtained through coercive methods or if the witness has a history of unreliable statements, the defense may challenge the admissibility (可采性) of this testimony. In such cases, the judge must evaluate the circumstances under which the evidence was obtained, considering factors like relevance, reliability, and the potential for prejudice.Another critical aspect of admissibility is the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence directly links a defendant to a crime, while circumstantial evidence relies on inference. For instance, finding a defendant’s fingerprints at a crime scene is direct evidence of their presence. However, if the prosecution relies solely on circumstantial evidence, such as the defendant being seen near the location around the time of the crime, the admissibility (可采性) of this evidence can be contested if it does not convincingly support the conclusion that the defendant committed the crime.Moreover, the admissibility of evidence can be influenced by legal precedents. Courts often refer to previous rulings when deciding whether certain types of evidence should be admissible. For example, if a court has previously ruled that a specific type of hearsay is inadmissible, similar evidence presented in a new case may be excluded based on that precedent. This reliance on past decisions underscores the importance of consistency in legal proceedings and the need for lawyers to stay informed about evolving standards of admissibility (可采性).In addition to evidentiary rules, the context of the case also plays a significant role in determining admissibility. For instance, in criminal cases, the rights of the accused must be upheld. If evidence is obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights, such as through an illegal search and seizure, its admissibility (可采性) can be challenged. This principle is grounded in the belief that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, reinforcing the idea that fair legal processes are essential.Furthermore, the admissibility of expert testimony is another area of interest. Experts may provide insights based on their specialized knowledge, but their qualifications and the relevance of their testimony must meet specific criteria to be deemed admissible. Courts often conduct a preliminary assessment to determine whether the expert's methods are reliable and whether their conclusions are based on sound reasoning.In conclusion, the concept of admissibility (可采性) is fundamental to the legal system. It serves as a gatekeeper for evidence, ensuring that only relevant and reliable information is presented in court. Legal professionals must navigate the complex rules surrounding admissibility to effectively advocate for their clients, emphasizing the importance of understanding this concept in the practice of law. As laws evolve and new precedents are established, the landscape of admissibility will continue to change, making it an ever-relevant topic in legal discussions.

在法律领域，可采性的概念在确定证据是否可以在法庭上被视为有效方面发挥着关键作用。证据的可采性（admissibility）受到各种规则和标准的制约，这些规则旨在确保法律程序的公正性和完整性。理解这些规则对法律专业人士至关重要，因为它们可能显著影响案件的结果。为了说明可采性的重要性，考虑一个被告被指控盗窃的场景。检方可能会出示一名声称在犯罪现场看到被告的证人。然而，如果证人的证词是通过强迫手段获得的，或者该证人有不可靠陈述的历史，辩方可能会质疑该证词的可采性（admissibility）。在这种情况下，法官必须评估证据获得的情况，考虑相关性、可靠性和潜在偏见等因素。可采性的另一个关键方面是直接证据和间接证据之间的区别。直接证据直接将被告与犯罪联系起来，而间接证据则依赖于推断。例如，在犯罪现场发现被告的指纹就是直接证据，证明他们在场。然而，如果检方仅依赖于间接证据，例如被告在犯罪发生时被看到在附近，那么该证据的可采性（admissibility）可能会受到质疑，因为它并不能令人信服地支持被告实施犯罪的结论。此外，证据的可采性可能会受到法律先例的影响。法院通常会参考以前的裁决，以决定某些类型的证据是否应当被采纳。例如，如果法院之前裁定某种特定类型的传闻证据不可采纳，那么在新案件中提出的类似证据可能会根据该先例被排除。这种对过去裁决的依赖突显了法律程序中一致性的重要性，以及律师需要了解不断变化的可采性（admissibility）标准。除了证据规则外，案件的背景也在确定可采性方面发挥着重要作用。例如，在刑事案件中，必须维护被告的权利。如果证据是通过违反被告宪法权利的方式获得的，例如通过非法搜查和扣押，其可采性（admissibility）可能会受到挑战。这一原则基于这样的信念：正义不仅要得到实现，而且还必须被看见，从而强化了公平法律程序的重要性。此外，专家证言的可采性也是一个值得关注的领域。专家可以根据其专业知识提供见解，但他们的资格以及证言的相关性必须满足特定标准才能被认为是可采的。法院通常会进行初步评估，以确定专家的方法是否可靠，以及他们的结论是否基于合理的推理。总之，可采性（admissibility）的概念是法律系统中的基础。它作为证据的守门人，确保只有相关和可靠的信息在法庭上呈现。法律专业人士必须驾驭围绕可采性的复杂规则，以有效地为客户辩护，这强调了在法律实践中理解这一概念的重要性。随着法律的发展和新先例的建立，可采性的格局将继续变化，使其成为法律讨论中一个永恒相关的话题。