Can Someone Be Convicted Of Murder Purely On Circumstantial Evidence?

It does not require a lawyer to give an opinion on the subject of circumstantial evidence, so I shall give this question a shot a lay person: The answer is “yes”, a person can be convicted of a crime on the basis of circumstantial evidence even where there is no direct evidence linking him to a crime. This happens where prosecutor is able to put together, different pieces of related information liking the a suspect to a crime.

supports the truth of an assertion made before the court by the prosecutor and there is often no need for any additional evidence. Circumstantial evidence on the other hand, is that relies on an made by the prosecutor in an attempt to connect it {the inference} to the truth.

in a criminal trial can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. If Jack and Joe say they saw Guy Bixby point a gun at Mr. Goodman and fire the weapon and saw Goodman fall, that is direct testimonial evidence.

On the other hand, if Jack and Joe say they saw Okito and Goodman arguing hotly as they entered a house together, and then heard Okito shouting, “I will kill you”, followed by the sound of a gunshot, after which they saw Okito run out of the room holding a gun, that is circumstantial evidence of the killing of Goodman by Okito.

Circumstantial evidence provides fair room for more than one explanation regarding the possible guilt of an accused person. In the case of circumstantial evidence, different pieces of evidence are usually required, which each the conclusions drawn from the other pieces of evidence. Together, these different pieces of evidence may support the particular made by the prosecutor, and lead to the conviction of a suspect in spite of the absence of direct evidence.

Source: George Sidney Abugri


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.