Some1Nose
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2011
- Messages
- 318
- Reaction score
- 0
snipped by me for relevanceI imagine the "a lot of evidence" is circumstantial.
I ran across the following and thought I'd share:
"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://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence