Highest Rated Comments

zbufferz5 karma

But it's all circumstantial!

This is the most annoying and silly thing that people say about criminal law. They say this like there's something wrong with circumstantial evidence. This was a tactic used by defense attorneys to make the point that there was no direct evidence, and therefore lead the jury to infer that no direct evidence = reasonable doubt. But they can't actually say this, because the absences of direct evidence does not automatically mean reasonable doubt. It's a ploy, on par with "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." No, actually, we don't.

So when you say It's all circumstantial! you are implicitly taking the defense's side.

There is nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence, particularly when there is a lot of it and they are corroborating. For example, fingerprints are circumstantial evidence. Any time you need an expert witness to explain a test (DNA, tire tracks, whatever) you are dealing with circumstantial evidence.

Direct evidence is rare in trials, because when it exists (like eyewitnesses), defense lawyers will take a plea deal and avoid trial.

Remember, the standard in criminal trials is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Not absolute certainty, not even a 95% confidence interval.