Does a jury have to have evidence to convict you of a crime? or can it be word against word?

Question

thanks for any info

Answer 1

I will assume that you mean in the United States, as every country's legal system is different... in the U.S., a case must have some kind of evidence to be brought to trial. Evidence does not include solely hard physical evidence like DNA or fingerprints... Circumstantial evidence may be considered as well. In court, "word against word" is considered also. It would be considered "testimony" by a witness and the defense. While I'm sure most prosecutors would like to have more than just testimonial evidence going into a case, there are probably plenty of cases going to court with nothing more than witness testimony.

Answer 2

Most states (but not all) follow Mossaic law which usually means that more than just "word vs word" is needed for a conviction. But there is at least one state that is under Nepolianic law. The rules differ there.

Answer 3

No it can not be word against word - the guiding priciple in the u.s. is guilty beyond dout. Word against word never constitutes that unless there is other evidence.

In other legal systems everything needs to be proven. And circumstancial evidence is not allowed.

Answer 4

Usually, there has to be some solid evidence,but there have been cases where it was word against word....like rape several years after the fact (mostly from daughters accusing fathers of rape)...or sexual abuse or molestation....sometimes is a word against word case.

Answer 5

The burdon of proof is on the procecution, they must prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If you can prove any reasonable doubt the jury can not hand down a coviction....