Amazon.com Widgets

Is circumstantial evidence enough for conviction?

  • Most Murder Cases Are Based On Circumstantial Evidence

    DNA at the scene of the crime is not direct evidence. It's cirmumstantial. The inference is that it is reasonable to conclude that the defendant was at the scene of the crime when the crime took place.

    An example of direct evidence would be a witness who claims to have seen the defendant commit the crime. No inferences need be drawn for this type of evidence.

    Because murder in many cases results in the only witness being dead those cases tend to rely on circumstantial evidence to make a reasonable argument that the defendant committed the crime. It's up to the jury to buy the argument.

    So yes, you can be convicted on circumstantial evidence.

  • Most trials are based on CE

    Most criminal cases that go to trial are based on circumstantial evidence. If there is direct evidence like video they don't go to trial. Those cases are usually plea bargained. Cases that actually go to trial are almost always based on circumstantial evidence. It's difficult for the defense to get around a video that shows the defendant robbing the 7-11.

  • I am an example why not.

    Circumstantial evidence alone is not enough to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with the very foundation the Justice system was made.

    Blackstone's formulation
    "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

    I'm the one unlucky innocent guy with a destroyed life, and let me tell you the Indiana Judges have not seen or heard the last of me. When the citizens have to pay for my destroyed life I will make sure they know who to blame. I read cases everyday now just looking for the one to take them down on and let me tell you they are doing it now more then ever. The crazy part is I have seen them use my case as the case law, and in reality I was not actually guilty It is an abortion of justice.

  • Just being present is circumstantial evidence

    Circumstantial evidence alone is not enough to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with the very foundation the Justice system was made.

    Blackstone's formulation
    "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

    I'm the one unlucky innocent guy with a destroyed life, and let me tell you the Indiana Judges have not seen or heard the last of me. When the citizens have to pay for my destroyed life I will make sure they know who to blame.

  • No way not quilty

    No smoking gun no conviction the system is crooked they prey on the poor to protect the rich . Like theft you better catch them red handed with the goods . Hate and jealously will destroy lives . The system is a business to generate revenue to pay for these people who dream up away to convict or get a plea deal .

  • I was found guilty of a £484 theft from my work.

    There was no direct evidence, no one seen me do anything, no one seen me take anything, the judge admitted others had an opportunity, the judge admitted i had no financial problems. Even one of my bosses who is there all the time admitted he did not know who took the money. The other boss who does not like me accused me and the judge went along with it. If the police had investigated properly they would have found the others who had an opportunity have financial difficulties. One has a debt company phoning him at work and the bosses have loaned him money and paid garage bills for him and the other uses SSAFA. Even my boss could not be trusted.

  • You must be a criminal !!! If you know one!!! That's what the police think!!!

    I run a successful business , and Through my work I met someone we worked for.Who wanted to set up a new business ,of which I was interested in ,I agreed to go into partnership . After 16 months he drove me mad, and ended up owing me money !! Which I chased him for, he eventually paid!!
    I singed him off the business ,and I ran it myself alongside my other business ,he then moved away , a year and 3 months later he was arrested for drug offensives !!
    3 years later after his confiscation !! Which Did not go the polices way they arrest me for money laundering !!!!
    Of which I have been on bail for 15 months with no charge!!
    The police have questioned everyone I know and who I work for !!
    It has ruined my business to a bad level as no one wants to transfer me money !!! I have also been given a massive tax bill by the NCA!!
    It has cost me 100k in accountant fees!!
    I've had to sell my family home to pay some of my tax plus my accountants bills plus solicitors bills !!!
    And this is all on CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence!!!!

  • You must be a criminal !!! If you know one!!! That's what the police think!!!

    I run a successful business , and Through my work I met someone we worked for.Who wanted to set up a new business ,of which I was interested in ,I agreed to go into partnership . After 16 months he drove me mad, and ended up owing me money !! Which I chased him for, he eventually paid!!
    I singed him off the business ,and I ran it myself alongside my other business ,he then moved away , a year and 3 months later he was arrested for drug offensives !!
    3 years later after his confiscation !! Which Did not go the polices way they arrest me for money laundering !!!!
    Of which I have been on bail for 15 months with no charge!!
    The police have questioned everyone I know and who I work for !!
    It has ruined my business to a bad level as no one wants to transfer me money !!! I have also been given a massive tax bill by the NCA!!
    It has cost me 100k in accountant fees!!
    I've had to sell my family home to pay some of my tax plus my accountants bills plus solicitors bills !!!
    And this is all on CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence!!!!

  • Depends on the evidence

    I strongly believe physical evidence is a must for a slam dunk conviction. Even in those cases, evidence can and has been planted. There has to be a lot of mitigating factors and crazy coincidences for circumstantial evidence to be worthy. Nobody should be convicted on hearsay and innuendo. Bottom line, in the end we leave the decision up to 12 random people with 0 law background who determine a persons life. I will NEVER understand using a jury. For minor-mid cases a judge can rule and for Capitol offences, a panel of judges can take a week to sift through everything. Just my opinion

  • Must have physical evidence!

    He say she say is not really creditable in court. Because sooo many people have went to prison for lying witnesses or victims, they find it hars to convict someone without physical proof. You have to be able to link the person to the crime. It depends on the case...

  • It Absolutely is not

    I think if you are a judge you should be 100 percent sure that the person whom you are judging is guilty before you start handing out time as if it were candy and circumstantial evidence is only evidence under specific circumstances and should not be considered solid proof at all.

  • Look at the Whole Picture

    Let say someone planted false evidence. Is there any suspected vendetta against this person from some one else. Not to just rely on evidence. Who is this person. Does the person have a rap sheet ? You can tell by the emotions of the person to see if he/she has any moral values. Is this person actually covering up for someone else crimes? You should look at the whole picture of the human being able to judge someone quickly by the way they look.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.