Circumstantial evidence in court can get a bad rep (1 Viewer)

[Ahsoka]

In court, direct evidence is evidence that requires no inferences to be drawn to tie the evidence to the crime, while circumstantial evidence requires an inference to be drawn. Circumstantial evidence can be viewed by some as inherently insufficient to prove guilt. However, some types of evidence that are viewed as very definitive and very strong evidence, such as fingerprint and DNA evidence, are actually considered circumstantial evidence rather than direct.

 

[Ahsoka]

General facts:
@athenarose @LexieBoo @Nyaz @Dreamer_of_Songs @Yachii @Nina @pinkmelodies @velvet @TALKing2Myself @ChuuAntics @Chiara @Moguri @rayy @ADHD_Burnout

 

[dark_tranquility]

DNA evidence is undisputed

 

[Ahsoka]

DNA evidence is undisputed

It can be very strong. The reason it’s circumstantial is that you have to infer that the person whose DNA you find was the actual suspect, vs their DNA somehow getting there another way. But many times it’s hard to argue that that inference is wrong

 

[dark_tranquility]

It can be very strong. The reason it’s circumstantial is that you have to infer that the person whose DNA you find was the actual suspect, vs their DNA somehow getting there another way. But many times it’s hard to argue that that inference is wrong

they used it for the golden state killer, I know that much

 

[centen]

I remember watching a documentary once where the forensics team mentioned that people often think circumstantial evidence is inherently weak, but if you can put together enough evidence, it can actually be very strong because you end up with only one person who could feasibly meet all the requirements for all those circumstances to be true.

 

[Moguri]

I never knew it was viewed this badly

 

[centen]

I never knew it was viewed this badly

My personal theory is that no person (aka, no juror) wants to be responsible for putting an innocent person in jail, potentially for the rest of their life.

So of course the ideal situation as a juror would be direct evidence: a moron criminal who live streamed themselves committing the crime in front of plenty of on-the-scene witnesses. Maybe wearing a nice sticker with their name on it too.

 

[Moguri]

My personal theory is that no person (aka, no juror) wants to be responsible for putting an innocent person in jail, potentially for the rest of their life.

So of course the ideal situation as a juror would be direct evidence: a moron criminal who live streamed themselves committing the crime in front of plenty of on-the-scene witnesses. Maybe wearing a nice sticker with their name on it too.

oh you mean like Johnny Somali

 

[centen]

oh you mean like Johnny Somali

Exactly!! The perfect situation to be a juror at.

I have a friend who has been called to jury duty five times and I never have once. I think I'd like to, just to experience it, but it does seem like a lot of pressure to make the correct call, unless you luck into the criminal being particularly stupid and obviously guilty. I had a law professor once who was an actual criminal defendant lawyer, and I remember someone asking how often he "won" cases, and he explained that, sometimes, "winning" is "getting the least severe sentence you can" because everyone knows the defendant did it, you're just arguing the case over how bad it was.

 

[Moguri]

Exactly!! The perfect situation to be a juror at.

I have a friend who has been called to jury duty five times and I never have once. I think I'd like to, just to experience it, but it does seem like a lot of pressure to make the correct call, unless you luck into the criminal being particularly stupid and obviously guilty. I had a law professor once who was an actual criminal defendant lawyer, and I remember asking someone how often he "won" cases, and he explained that, sometimes, "winning" is "getting the least severe sentence you can" because everyone knows the defendant did it, you're just arguing the case over how bad it was.

oh my... it would be too stressfull for Moguri

 

[Ahsoka]

My personal theory is that no person (aka, no juror) wants to be responsible for putting an innocent person in jail, potentially for the rest of their life.

So of course the ideal situation as a juror would be direct evidence: a moron criminal who live streamed themselves committing the crime in front of plenty of on-the-scene witnesses. Maybe wearing a nice sticker with their name on it too.

The sticker with their name is just the icing on the cake

 

[Ahsoka]

Exactly!! The perfect situation to be a juror at.

I have a friend who has been called to jury duty five times and I never have once. I think I'd like to, just to experience it, but it does seem like a lot of pressure to make the correct call, unless you luck into the criminal being particularly stupid and obviously guilty. I had a law professor once who was an actual criminal defendant lawyer, and I remember asking someone how often he "won" cases, and he explained that, sometimes, "winning" is "getting the least severe sentence you can" because everyone knows the defendant did it, you're just arguing the case over how bad it was.

Did she end up being picked to be on the jury in the end? I haven’t been on jury duty, but from my understanding lots of times you don’t actually end up in the final jury for loads of reasons, whether they had no more cases or it’s decided you’re not suitable for that particular case or there’s too many people on the jury or whatever. And then if you do end up on the jury, usually the case is something really lame like boring and petty financial stuff. My dad and I both got called once, but in my case they canceled it before it happened and for him he went there, sat in a room for 30 minutes, and then was told they have no more cases so he can go home.

 

[centen]

Did she end up being picked to be on the jury in the end? I haven’t been on jury duty, but from my understanding lots of times you don’t actually end up in the final jury for loads of reasons, whether they had no more cases or it’s decided you’re not suitable for that particular case or there’s too many people on the jury or whatever. And then if you do end up on the jury, usually the case is something really lame like boring and petty financial stuff. My dad and I both got called once, but in my case they canceled it before it happened and for him he went there, sat in a room for 30 minutes, and then was told they have no more cases so he can go home.

She has! She said she found it interesting because her degree (that she doesn't use) is in criminal justice, but it was some sort of traffic case, so admittedly, not a big exciting case.

The rest of them were just free paid days off while she waited to see if she got picked.

 

[Ahsoka]

She has! She said she found it interesting because her degree (that she doesn't use) is in criminal justice, but it was some sort of traffic case, so admittedly, not a big exciting case.

The rest of them were just free paid days off while she waited to see if she got picked.

Wdym? Traffic cases are totally super interesting

 

[Selfmate]

how does that affect hybe and ador and NJZ and MHJ? lol

 

[Ahsoka]

how does that affect hybe and ador and NJZ and MHJ? lol

Newjeans side had evidence?

 

[Selfmate]

Newjeans side had evidence?

I should tag @/tokkis for that lol

Spoiler

ahsoka turning to the dark side one shade at a time

 

[Moguri]

Newjeans side had evidence?

that was really unexpected savagery