Talk:Res gestae
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Doktor Waterhouse in topic Jurisdictional Bias
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Jurisdictional Bias edit
The first section is unclear which country's Rules of Evidence are referred to. The first statement may only refer to U.S. jurisprudence, as res gestae is still accepted in of parts Canada at least. Also, the syntax used is unclear whether it is the term or the rule that is discredited. Perhaps a citation would help. The section then discusses how it is used, but not where its use is discredited or no longer used.
"Felony" is also a country-dependent term and is not used in all Common Law-based jurisdictions.
- The article clearly states, in the first sentence, that it refers to American jurisprudence. And as for the word "felony", it's an extremely common term that I am sure is used in all English-speaking (which would also be common-law based) jurisdictions. Captain Quirk (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- But the article shouldn't be confined to US jurisprudence. This is an important rule of evidence in many common law countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc). This could be rectified by making the introduction general and then making new sections to cover the Commonwealth nations. Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)