Describe the manner in which circumstantial evidence is used in a criminal prosecution.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

It is a myth that one cannot be convicted of a crime based solely on circumstantial evidence. The broad definition of circumstantial evidence encompasses all evidence other than direct evidence, provided that it logically connects the defendant to a crime. Circumstantial evidence is sometimes referred to as indirect evidence for this reason. Circumstantial evidence is used in a criminal case by inferring from a series of known facts the existence of an unknown fact. In other words, by the process of deductive reasoning, inferences are logically drawn from a series of known facts, and a conclusion is reached. For example, the fact that the defendant's fingerprints are detected on a weapon found at the scene of a homicide does not necessarily mean that the defendant committed the crime. The fingerprints tie the defendant to the gun, and finding the gun at the scene of the crime may be a circumstance relating the gun to the commission of the crime. Likewise, testimony that the defendant was seen near the scene of the crime shortly after its commission does not necessarily constitute guilt; but again, it may lead the jury to infer guilt. An accumulation of circumstantial evidence may be nothing more than a series of unfortunate coincidences for which the defendant may have a logical and truthful explanation. How much circumstantial evidence is required for a jury to convict someone of a crime varies from case to case and depends largely on the composition of the jury.
Circumstantial evidence can be considered analogous to links in a chain. Each link might be an unfortunate coincidence, but the greater the number of links, the more a jury is likely to infer guilt by joining the links into a chain of overwhelming circumstantial evidence.