Why can't people be convicted on circumstantial evidence if it is overwhelming?

Answer 1

Generally circumstantial evidence is more reliable than direct evidence (eyewitnesses). Human memory is faulty but a DNA test is conclusive.

Answer 2

The whole basis of our rights and freedom is on the presumption of innocence. Circumstantial evidence is not definitive and therefore creates that element of doubt. It would be terrible if people could be convicted by circumstantial evidence and here is why?:
Situation: A man is murdered by a woman who has blond hair stands 5 foot 8 and was wearing blue jean's red shirt, white shoes and has a ta too on her right arm.

You walk out to your car in the morning to go to work. You notice that your car has been broken into and that there is a knife sitting inside your car. The police arrive and find the murder weapon used in the crime for which was just mentioned. You just happen to fit the description of the suspect. You stand 5 foot 8 blues jean's white shoes red shirt and ta too. Eye witnesses confirm that you look exactly like the suspect running from the victim's apartment.

These are all circumstantial and should never be enough to convict a person.

Answer 3

To a certain extent you can, and it has happened in some cases. But to answer your question, circumstantial evidence is a series of coincidences. Consequences even if overwhelming, but don't necessarily equal physical evidence. You can't argue with physical evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be justified even if its overwhelming.

Answer 4

you have 2 diverse questions right here. One, no actual evidence AND in basic terms a witness. in case you have a witness to a homicide, you probable have very stable actual evidence to boot. Now, whether it particularly is a hearsay witness, then the case will pass nowhere. people are convicted very frequently on overwhelming circumstantial evidence. without each and all the info of any given case, i'm able to in basic terms say it is available. i'm no longer able to think of of any homicide the place there could be NO actual evidence. in simple terms finding it particularly is the complicated area.

Answer 5

Because it's circumstantial. You need solid evidenece. If I drop my glove on Vine St. by mistake, and there is a crime there that night and they find my glove at the spot of the crime, does that make me guilty??? No the evidence is circumstantial, even though the evidence is overwhelming that I was at the scene of the crime.

Answer 6

They can be.

Even though there are guidelines what circumstantial evidence is, a judge usually has discretion determining if it is or isn't. Many times, it is based on their opinion. They can allow or deny evidence in a case. Judges have and do make many mistakes in this area. That is why there is the appeal process.

Answer 7

Almost all trials are based on circumstantial evidence. It is more reliable than direct evidence. Direct meaning an eye witness, which is very unreliable. The jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. That means what is reasonable to them, it does not mean no doubt.

Answer 8

They can and have...did you not read about the Scott Peterson trial? He was convicted solely on circumstantial evidence.

Answer 9

Happens all the time. As noted above, Scott Peterson is an example. Perry March in Nashville is another one, no body, no weapons, just a missing wife and testimony from dubious sources.

Answer 10

They can. Look at Scott Peterson.

BTW, I do not agree with him receiving the death penalty since he was convicted with circumstantial evidence and there was no "smoking gun".