To avoid getting a time out, I am going to refrain from opining about the dangers of armchair pseudo-lawyers who make up legal rules and Constitutional protections. Instead, I am going to post only case law. But there are so many wonderful posters on WS and I would really really encourage you to take most of what people tell you "evidence" means or what "LE did bad" with a grain of salt.
Saying "the state has no evidence" is a baseless argument. THERE IS NO LEGAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. But don't trust me, trust the Supreme Court of the United States.
"The adequacy of circumstantial evidence also extends beyond civil cases; we have never questioned the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in support of a criminal conviction, even though proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required. See Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 140 (1954) (observing that, in criminal cases, circumstantial evidence is “intrinsically no different from testimonial evidence”
. And juries are routinely instructed that “[t]he law makes no distinction between the weight or value to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.” 1A K. O’Malley, J. Grenig, & W. Lee, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Criminal §12.04 (5th ed. 2000); see also 4 L. Sand, J. Siffert, W. Loughlin, S. Reiss, & N. Batterman, Modern Federal Jury Instructions ¶74.01 (2002) (model instruction 74—2)."
So if you'd like to instruct others to acquit any defendant who doesn't bleed all over the victim, I suggest you become a lawyer and obtain an appointment to the Supreme Court to overturn 200 years of precedent.