最新更新的文章列表
OSHA Renews AllianceOf The Plastics Industry
2007-11-25 21:51:57.0
Washington, DC - The U.S. Department of Labors Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently renewed its alliance with the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI). The alliance will continue to provide SPI members and other stakeholders in the plastics industry with important information, guidance, and access to resources to promote a safe and healthful workplace.
"This cooperative alliance continues to ensure that Americas working men and women in the plastics industry have the necessary knowledge to reduce injury and illness in the workplace," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Edwin G. Foulke Jr. "I am pleased that this strategic partnership continues to build upon our successes and strives to protect employees health and safety."
"Our relationship with OSHA is essential as SPI works to provide our member companies and their employees with the tools and guidance they need to create the safest and healthiest work environment possible in their plants
"This cooperative alliance continues to ensure that Americas working men and women in the plastics industry have the necessary knowledge to reduce injury and illness in the workplace," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Edwin G. Foulke Jr. "I am pleased that this strategic partnership continues to build upon our successes and strives to protect employees health and safety."
"Our relationship with OSHA is essential as SPI works to provide our member companies and their employees with the tools and guidance they need to create the safest and healthiest work environment possible in their plants
The Nature of Evidence
Evidence is any statement or material object from which reasonable conclusions can be drawn. It is a broad category embracing anything perceptible to the five senses including documents, exhibits, facts agreed to by both sides, and the testimony of witnesses. Evidence in a criminal trial concerns the intent, motive, means, and opportunity to commit a crime.
Evidence is any statement or material object from which reasonable conclusions can be drawn. It is a broad category embracing anything perceptible to the five senses including documents, exhibits, facts agreed to by both sides, and the testimony of witnesses. Evidence in a criminal trial concerns the intent, motive, means, and opportunity to commit a crime.
In general, evidence is divided into two categories: circumstantial and physical. Circumstantial evidence consists of information gleaned from witnesses and documents that point to an individual as the perpetrator of a crime. Physical evidence consists of actual objects ?bodies, weapons, body fluid stains, fingerprints, hairs, fibers, etc. ?that are associated with the crime and may be linked to the perpetrator.
It is the work of forensic scientists to examine the physical evidence, and using the methods of science, to reconstruct the events that constituted the crime. The prosecutor must then combine this data with statements of witnesses and evidence from documents such as correspondence, telephone records and credit card receipts to develop an overall theory of the case which can be presented in court.
Scientific evidence is an increasingly important part of both civil and criminal trials. Forensic science is a growth industry. New technologies for analyzing physical evidence are growing rapidly and private companies are becoming an increasingly important resource for the legal system. The testimony of experts is the primary means of introducing scientific evidence. Because these experts are imparting information "beyond the ken" of the layperson, they must present information that goes beyond first hand observation, opinions and hearsay not permitted under ordinary rules of evidence. Lay witnesses are constrained to testify only about matters they have directly observed. Expert witnesses are allowed to draw inferences from facts which the judge or jury is not competent to draw. They may also rely on seminars, publications, records and conversations with other experts that are part of their normal course of business.
Despite fictional presentations to the contrary (Perry Mason is a prime example), there are very few surprises in actual trials. This is because of the process called discovery, whereby opposing attorneys are permitted to learn the facts and expert opinions upon which the other side is basing its case prior to the actual trial. In addition, each side is required to provide the other side with a list of its witnesses before the start of trial.
Providing discovery materials in criminal cases is binding only upon the prosecution in all but a few states and Canada. Access to materials through the discovery process is the main avenue the defense has for learning what evidence will be presented against the accused at trial. This allows the defense to re-examine the evidence and develop alternative hypotheses to the prosecutors case.
In California, the defenses access to scientific evidence is defined in the Griffin decision which provides that the defense can have the evidence only after the prosecution has completed their testing. Also, under both Griffin and a U.S. Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. Youngblood, the prosecution may consume the evidence in the testing process, as long as they act in good faith.
Beginning in 1989, furious battles erupted over discovery efforts in the DNA war. Gen-erally the defense has been able to examine autoradiographs from the case in question, laboratory reports, and the lab notes that support them in addition to the lab procedure manuals and proficiency testing results. Requests for additional materials such as other autoradiographs, validation studies, population data bases, and raw data face harsher scrutiny and often were not honored. Early DNA cases were marked by long and costly litigation over discovery. The defense claims that the prosecution and the labs they employ "stonewall discovery requests. The lab resist discovery, maintaining that the requested materials are privileged, constitute trade secrets, are legally irrelevant.
Forensic labs also claim that the defense regularly makes overly burdensome and duplicitous requests for reams of material. If they were required to comply, lab personnel would be doing little else than identifying and duplicating discovery materials. DNA discovery battles are still being strenuously fought. Indeed, O.J. Simpsons chief lawyer, Robert Shapiro, has labeled Cellmark a "discovery outlaw." However most commentators would agree that many of the issues surrounding discovery already have been litigated or settled in other ways.
Scientific Evidence Admissibility Standards
The key element in whether scientific evidence is admissible is whether it is trustworthy. To be considered trustworthy, it must demonstrate accuracy (validity) and consistency (reliability). Admissibility is determined by the Frye rule, which stresses "general acceptance" or by the Federal Rules of Evidence (followed by some state courts) which stress helpfulness, reliability, and relevance.
The key element in whether scientific evidence is admissible is whether it is trustworthy. To be considered trustworthy, it must demonstrate accuracy (validity) and consistency (reliability). Admissibility is determined by the Frye rule, which stresses "general acceptance" or by the Federal Rules of Evidence (followed by some state courts) which stress helpfulness, reliability, and relevance.
In all of the trials to date in which DNA evidence has been involved, courts have ruled it as evidence or, on appeal, have remanded the case to the trial court in 22 reported cases and have limited its admissibility in 16 cases, generally because of statistical questions.
The Frye Standard
In the 1923 decision United States v. Frye, a District of Columbia circuit court ruled against the admissibility of lie detector evidence in a murder case because the technology had not been accepted in the relevant scientific community. Since then, most state courts have followed this general standard on whether or not to allow novel scientific evidence. The so-called Frye hearing gives the prosecution and defense the opportunity to attack adverse scientific evidence and try to keep it out of the trial. The key paragraph in this decision reads:
文章评论
[以下网友留言只代表其个人观点，不代表中华网的观点或立场]