D
DRN
Guest
"cite your case law that states that credible cicumstantial evidence does not carry the same weight as direct evidence if direct evidence is not present."
Okay, I'll give it a shot. But my original statement did not say "credible circumstantial evidence if direct evidence is not present." My statement was that circumstantial evidence does not carry the same weight as direct evidence.
Direct Evidence: 1. Evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true,
proves a fact without inference or presumption. Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, West Group, page 577
Circumstantial Evidence: 1. Evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation.
2. All evidence that is not given by testimony. Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, West Group, page 576
MARTIN v. D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPT., 812 F.2d 1425 (D.C. Cir. 1987) stated in pertinent part:
[33] We set out, as best as we can capture it, that more demanding standard. Where the defendant's
subjective intent is an essential component of plaintiff's claim, once defendant has moved for pretrial judgment based on a showing of the objective reasonableness of his actions, then plaintiff, to avert dismissal short of trial, must come forward with something more than inferential or circumstantial support for his allegation of unconstitutional motive. That is, some direct evidence
that the officials' actions were improperly motivated must be produced if the case is to proceed to
trial. See Harris, 642 F.Supp. at 1066.
or
ARIZONA v. FULMINANTE, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) stated in pertinent part:
“(a) A defendant's confession is like no other evidence. It is probably the most probative and damaging evidence that can be admitted against him, and, if it is a full confession, a jury may be
tempted to rely on it alone in reaching its decision. The risk that a coerced confession is unreliable, coupled with the profound impact that it has upon the jury, requires a reviewing court to exercise extreme caution before determining that the confession's admission was harmless. Pp. 295-296.
(b) The evidence shows that the State has failed to meet its burden. First, the transcript reveals that both the trial court and the State recognized that a successful prosecution depended on the jury's believing both confessions, since it is unlikely that the physical and circumstantial evidence alone would have been sufficient to convict.”
Okay, I'll give it a shot. But my original statement did not say "credible circumstantial evidence if direct evidence is not present." My statement was that circumstantial evidence does not carry the same weight as direct evidence.
Direct Evidence: 1. Evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true,
proves a fact without inference or presumption. Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, West Group, page 577
Circumstantial Evidence: 1. Evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation.
2. All evidence that is not given by testimony. Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, West Group, page 576
MARTIN v. D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPT., 812 F.2d 1425 (D.C. Cir. 1987) stated in pertinent part:
[33] We set out, as best as we can capture it, that more demanding standard. Where the defendant's
subjective intent is an essential component of plaintiff's claim, once defendant has moved for pretrial judgment based on a showing of the objective reasonableness of his actions, then plaintiff, to avert dismissal short of trial, must come forward with something more than inferential or circumstantial support for his allegation of unconstitutional motive. That is, some direct evidence
that the officials' actions were improperly motivated must be produced if the case is to proceed to
trial. See Harris, 642 F.Supp. at 1066.
or
ARIZONA v. FULMINANTE, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) stated in pertinent part:
“(a) A defendant's confession is like no other evidence. It is probably the most probative and damaging evidence that can be admitted against him, and, if it is a full confession, a jury may be
tempted to rely on it alone in reaching its decision. The risk that a coerced confession is unreliable, coupled with the profound impact that it has upon the jury, requires a reviewing court to exercise extreme caution before determining that the confession's admission was harmless. Pp. 295-296.
(b) The evidence shows that the State has failed to meet its burden. First, the transcript reveals that both the trial court and the State recognized that a successful prosecution depended on the jury's believing both confessions, since it is unlikely that the physical and circumstantial evidence alone would have been sufficient to convict.”