can someone be convicted of a felony with out any evidence?

Answer 1

i know they used to be, 1930s or so, however, i think they still can, on circumstantial evidence. boo. :(

Answer 2

What do you mean "without any evidence?"
The prosecutor can't just go up to the jury and say "convict him." (If the jury would, either the judge would throw the case out or it would be overturned on appeal.)

There are all sorts of types of "evidence." Hearsay is "evidence" (just not reliable evidence). Eyewitness testimony is "evidence." "Circumstantial evidence" (I saw him in the area at 11:55 wearing black; the crime was committed at 11:52 by a guy wearing black) is "evidence."

(P.S. most people don't know what circumstancial evidence is, or how often it's used. Direct evidence is sometimes even less reliable than circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence includes things like the murder weapon being found in the defendant's house, the defendant being present at or near the time of the crime, or his footprints being found near the body. It requires the factfinder to use logic or reasoning to connect the evidence with the crime. Most people would think this to be fairly "hard" evidence, but it's technically circumstancial -- it's just a circumstance that shows that the defendant may have done the crime. "Direct" evidence is really only confessions and eyewitness testimony, but those can be EXTREMELY unreliable (people's memories are bad and can be "coached" by the police, and confessions are regularly coerced out from people...)
http://www.answers.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence)

Very few cases are prosecuted with DNA, fingerprints, the whole CSI treatment. Most are just people getting on the stand telling what they saw and what they heard. This is perfectly acceptable evidence, although fallible. That's why we have juries, to tell who's lying and who's not.

Answer 3

Your idea of no evidence and the laws idea of no evidence are probably not the same. There is ALWAYS evidence in a crime it is just a matter of finding it. If there is absolutely no evidence against a person, not even circumstantial evidence than no they can not be convicted by a jury of there peers. Circumstantial evidence alone is usually not even enough to get a person indicted though. So if a person is indicted on a charge then there has to be either an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence or a reasonable amount of hard evidence or a grand jury would never even have been able to hear the case let alone vote on it.

Answer 4

You're are innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. So if the persecutors can provide sufficient evidence to convict you of a felony. You can't be held guilty of a felony. Evidence are the essential in any court case.

Answer 5

No, never, impossible

Evidence includes physical evidence, testimony, circumstantial evidence, expert testimony, maps, documents, records...

So if there is no evidence, then there cannot be a conviction

Answer 6

Happens all the time; circumstantial evidence, expert witnesses, etc.

Answer 7

Yes. Just ask Scott Peterson.

Answer 8

i dont see how if there is no evidence

Answer 9

Yes they can. Just ask Sacco and Vanzetti .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacco_and_Vanzetti

Answer 10

Uh, no. No evidence, no crime...no crime, no conviction.