[quote]doogie wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]doogie wrote:
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]doogie wrote:
I can’t wait for the inevitable Penthouse spread.
You fools who think there was no evidence need to get your heads out of your ass. For 31 days she didn’t report the kid missing. That is all you need to know to fry her.[/quote]
Circumstantial … All this proves is she’s one of the worst mothers in history … Does NOT prove she murdered her daughter … dummy[/quote]
Circumstantial evidence is legitimate evidence in a trial. There is direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Saying it is circumstantial doesn’t diminish it as evidence.[/quote]
More than mere circumstantial evidence is needed to meet the standard of “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”
[/quote]
From Lawyers.com
Can a jury convict a defendant based only on circumstancial evidence?
Yes. The law recognizes two kinds of evidence, direct and circumstantial.
Direct evidence
is testimony by a witness about what he or she personally observed, heard or experienced.
Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. It allows the jury to infer, from other facts
presented and proven, that a particular fact or circumstance exists, even though there has been no
direct proof of it. The only limit on inferences drawn from proven facts is that they must be
logical and reasonable, and not just speculation.
Here’s an easy example. Suppose when you
wake up tomorrow morning, the sidewalk outside your house is wet. Did it rain? There’s no direct
evidence of that, since someone could have used a hose on the sidewalk. The law allows, but does
not require you to find from the fact of the wet sidewalk that it rained. In deciding whether the
wet sidewalk is proof that it rained, a court will tell you to consider all the evidence in light of
reason, experience and common sense.
When a jury retires to deliberate, it is instructed that
there is no legal distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence so far as proof is
concerned. It is up to them to determine how much weight to give any particular piece of evidence,
whether it be direct or circumstantial.
More:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/5218/Circumstantial-Evidence.html
Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence”(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials.
http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/circum-evidence.html
Circumstantial Evidence
Circumstantial evidence is any indirect evidence of a fact that helps to establish the guilt or innocence of a defendant through reasoning.
Circumstantial evidence is the result of combining seemingly unrelated facts that, when considered together, infer a conclusion that supports a litigantâ??s version of the facts. The inference provoked from circumstantial evidence must flow logically, reasonably, and naturally from the facts presented.
Criminal prosecutors often rely heavily on circumstantial evidence to prove their case. Civil cases are often based solely, or primarily, on circumstantial evidence, particularly in cases involving liability.
Some legal experts would even argue that circumstantial evidence could carry more weight in a case than direct evidence.
[/quote]
From a practicing prosecuting attorney: “Theres no way the prosecution is getting a conviction on the evidence they have”
