How easy (or difficult) is it to prosecute someone for Criminal Homicide under the?

Question

'charge' of "Causing or aiding a suicide" ?

If there were a ton of valid evidences to support this case.....
would it still be extremely difficult?

What does the law require as 'proof' to make this kind of case plausalby 'stick' without reasonable doubt? What kind of stipulations are to this?

Also, if some one committed suicide as the result of another person's actions..... could that person be charged with either invoulantary or voluntary manslaughter as well, or instead of?

This is research of sorts...... could you provide case examples if possible?......

studies.................................................

JD: Yes i know.... this is part of the problem......that's why i asked the level of difficulty, meaning atleast in the sense of what "roadblocks" or obstacles might be encountered.
I understand the necessity of direct evidence, linking 'perpetrator' to 'victim'....as is really the necessity of prosecuting all degrees of criminal homicide. I suppose....
But, as per this issue, in the case
(or circumstance) where there remains solid evidences, the most substantial of them are highly circumstantial and would most likely therefore be inadmissable.
And reasonable doubt has set free more criminals that should by all right be behind bars for their pernicious and revolting actions towards a 'victim' either voluntarily or [involuntarily].
(Though I am convinced it's more often voluntary than accidental.)
Building a case solid enough to stand beyond reasonable doubt is always the challenge......

I'm somewhat studying this issue... thus was the reasoning behind my asking.

Answer 1

Unless thru direct evidence you can prove a substantive direct connection,it would be virtually impossible to charge someone as a party to a suicide. By direct evidence I mean physical evidence of a "direct" connection to the victim at the specific time the victim committed suicide. That is why there are laws that include several degree's of homicide and manslaughter. You talk of a ton of "valid evidences", but the fact remains that anything but DIRECT evidence is nothing but here-say and wouldn't even be allowed in as evidence in any court proceeding, in any court of law, in the United States.Even a fresh out of law school defense attorney could easy challenge and prevent this as being accepted as evidence.
I have explained it here to the best of my abilities. You are very vague in your information, so this is the best I can do without knowing more. If this victim was a family member I wish you luck in your efforts
Reasonable doubt is when a judge or jury decides based on the allowable evidence submitted, if in fact a party is guilty or not of a crime.

Answer 2

It all depends on the evidence, and the ability of the prosecutor...evidence is either 'direct evidence' like the
proverbial SMOKING GUN, or indirect [ circumstantial] evidence like hearing a crash and finding a two-year-old
in front of a broken cookie jar. Both are admissible.
Something to remember: Innocent till proven guilty.

Answer 3

It can't be that hard, look at what happened to Dr.Jack Kavorkian.