Origin Developed by English courts in the 1915 case Rex v. Smith, the Brides in the Bath case.
The doctrine of chances is an evidentiary principle allowing prosecutors to introduce evidence of past similar incidents involving a defendant to show that it is highly improbable the defendant was repeatedly and innocently involved in comparable suspicious circumstances. It operates as an exception to the general rule, found in instruments such as Federal Rule of Evidence 404, that bars evidence of prior wrongful acts offered merely to show the character of a person or predict behavior. The doctrine traces to the 1915 English case Rex v. Smith, the so-called brides in the bath case, in which a man charged with drowning his wife in a bathtub was undone by evidence that two of his previous wives had died the same way; the pattern was judged too similar to be coincidence, letting the earlier deaths into evidence despite the usual bar on character evidence.
Facts
Origin PeriodDeveloped by English courts in the 1915 case Rex v. Smith, the Brides in the Bath case. 1 Core PrincipleEvidence of a defendant's repeated involvement in similar suspicious incidents may be admitted to show that innocent coincidence is too statistically improbable. 1 Cross-Tradition Connections
Formulated By
Wigmore articulated the doctrine of chances rationale in his treatise on Anglo-American evidence law.
In Legal System
U.S. evidence law theory for admitting evidence of a defendant's other acts to show an objective improbability of innocent recurrence.
Sources
1. Doctrine of Chances (Wikipedia)
WikipediaWikipedia, Doctrine of Chances article, lead section definitional sentenceQuote, Wikipedia, Doctrine of Chances article, lead section definitional sentence
In law, the doctrine of chances is a rule of evidence that allows evidence to show that it is unlikely a defendant would be repeatedly, innocently involved in similar, suspicious circumstances.
View the Source 1. Doctrine of Chances (Wikipedia)
WikipediaWikipedia, Doctrine of Chances article, discussion of Rex v. SmithView the Source Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.