circumstantial evidence cases
DNA profiling: An important identification method. The Jessica Lal murder case is one of the most cited, debated and controversial cases where the Apex Court’s decision was based on the circumstantial evidence as the witnesses had turned hostile. Direct evidence is evidence of a fact based on a witness's personal knowledge o r observation of that fact. I am watching court tv right now and it is showing a murder case based soley on circumstantial evidence. Such degree of congency which can permit only an inference of guilt. It is trite that in cases based on circumstantial evidence the courts are enjoined to follow the judgment in R v Blom 1939 AD 188at 202 . The prosecution seeks to prove separate events and circumstances which can be explained rationally only by the guilt of the defendant. The test to be applied in cases dependent upon circumstantial evidence before inferring guilt have been stated in various decided cases. In this case, the People conten d that there is circumstantial evidence of the defendant's guilt. Circumstantial requires a certain level of corroboration which can be established through the conduct of the accused and surrounding circumstance. “Circumstantial evidence, in law, evidence not drawn from direct observation of a fact in issue. http://www.peachstatelawyer.com The notion that circumstantial evidence is less reliable than direct evidence is false. Application of Circumstantial Evidence the case of Jessica Lal. Racial discrimination in the workplace is often unwitnessed. And DNA is also a part of circumstantial evidence in rape cases. Read more: Ineptness of the law is a crime which is most devastating: Of rapes and the society. Thus, for circumstantial evidence to warrant a conviction, it must be cogent and compelling and there must be no aspect of the case which weakens or destroy any inference as to the guilt of the accused person that could be drawn from the circumstantial evidence. For years, civil and criminal cases have been won or lost based on circumstantial evidence. Initially, the trial court had acquitted the accused on the ground of hostile witnesses and lack of strong evidence. A case based on circumstantial evidence may be just as convincing and reliable as a case based upon direct evidence. circumstantial evidence – there may be a combination of circumstances no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion; but the whole, taken together, may create a strong conclusion of guilty, that is, with as So, the majority of those convicted have been by a majority if not entirely by circumstantial evidence. In a sense all that is available is a theory of what happened. Essentials for conviction purely through circumstantial evidence. Such a conclusion must be established beyond reasonable doubt. If a witness testifies that he saw a defendant fire a bullet into the body of a person who then died, this is direct testimony of material facts in murder, and the only question is whether the witness is telling the truth. Circumstantial evidence is evidence in a case which can be used to draw inferences about a series of events. Meaning of Circumstantial Evidence. App. A number of famous cases have been proved using circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence, also known as ‘indirect’ evidence, is often dismissed as being weaker than direct evidence. A circumstantial case is most likely to succeed where the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, ie, there is no other viable explanation. The standard of review of any instructions on the drawing of inferences of knowledge in a circumstantial case is "whether the trier of fact, acting judicially, could reasonably be satisfied that the accused’s guilt was the only reasonable conclusion available on the totality of the evidence". Circumstantial evidence is widely misunderstood, and many people cannot understand how a case can be advanced without primary evidence of wrongdoing. The two ‘cardinal rules of logic’ relating to inferential reasoning in cases based on circumstantial evidence set out in Blom are: ‘(1) The inference sought to be drawn must be consistent with all the proved facts. On the other hand, there comes a situation where the evidence does not lead to the occurrence of crime but the certain situation does then the decision-making bodies face difficulties in delivering justice. Circumstantial Evidence in Discrimination Cases. Circumstantial identification by fingerprint will, for instance, tend to be more reliable than the direct evidence of a witness who identifies the accused as the person he or she saw but obviously there are cases in which the inference will be less compelling and direct evidence more trustworthy. Circumstantial evidence plays a pivotal role in criminal cases when there is absence of any direct evidence. and circumstantial evidence. Though direct evidence is considered more effective and reliable, many successful criminal prosecutions solely rely on circumstantial evidence. This will depend upon the number and nature of the basic facts relied upon by the Crown when considered as a whole (not individually or in isolation). In cases where evidence directly leads to the occurrence of crime then it becomes easier for the judge to make a conviction. The evidence used to prove guilt is classified as either direct or circumstantial. R. 20 the principle as regards the application of circumstantial evidence was enunciated as follows:-“Circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence. A web of circumstantial evidence points to the two men on trial over the Red Fox Tavern shooting and robbery more than 30 years ago being responsible for the crime, the Crown says. My question is how are cases strong enough to prosecute with only circumstantial evidence, or even with limited physical evidence. To illustrate this, we can use two examples relating to burglary. In one successful prosecution, the court concluded that the evidence of the defendant and victim was unreliable and the only viable explanation for the injury in light of the neighbour’s evidence was an unlawful assault. Circumstantial evidence is the evidence not of the fact in issue but of other facts from which the issue can be inferred. Let me explain what constitutes direct and circumstantial evidence and how they differ. "Circumstantial evidence may be the more convincing form of evidence. Circumstantial Evidence also understood as indirect evidence cannot be assumed to be inferior to direct evidence. A circumstantial case consists of evidence of a number of different circumstances which, taken in combination, point to the guilt of the accused person because they would usually exist in combination only because the accused did what is alleged against him […]. The point is it requires the totality of circumstances to construct an inference, not the obviousness of the conclusion to establish circumstantial evidence. Information on Circumstantial Evidence in Atlanta Drug Defense Cases. In REPUBLIC vrs TAYLOR WEAVER & DONOVAN (1928) 21 Cr. Plaintiffs who sue their employer for discrimination are often convinced (and often, correctly so) that some adverse employment action done to them is the result of discrimination on the part of their employer. In many cases, direct evidence of a crime does not exist and prosecutors must use evidence that implies the defendant committed the alleged offense. Circumstantial evidence definition is - evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable … 3. Circumstantial Evidence. Guilt or innocence is established by circumstantial evidence through reasoning. If the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled, conviction can be solely based on circumstantial evidence without direct evidence. Actually, more or less, circumstantial evidence is a logical principle of deduction. How can a case be tried with limited physical evidence or just even circumstantial evidence. It is that evidences which are offered to prove certain related circumstances from which the existence of the fact at issue may be inferred—for example, fingerprint, hair or blood of a person from the crime scene. Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts for conviction and acquittal of the accused with the help of reasoning. As Bentham quoted “witnesses are the eyes and ears of the justice “, we all know the importance of witnesses in any legal case. Respondents who consciously engage in … SUFFICIENCY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL CASE The rule that the state may obtain a criminal conviction only when the evidence proves the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is basic to our law.' To illustrate this, we can use two examples relating to burglary. Case Law: Circumstantial Evidence is Valid & Permitted. By its very definition, circumstantial evidence seems to be less credible because it requires an extra step of inference to determine a conclusion that might not even be the truth. Circumstantial evidence is widely misunderstood, and many people cannot understand how a case can be advanced without primary evidence of wrongdoing. The Judge must be satisfied that the circumstantial evidence has taken the case out of the realm of conjecture so that it attains. Cases Won on Circumstantial Evidence. Circumstantial evidence, in law, evidence not drawn from direct observation of a fact in issue. Definition of Circumstantial Evidence. In accordance with the work A Dictionary of Law, this is a description of Circumstantial Evidence : (circumstantial evidence, indirect evidence) Evidence from which the judge or Jury may infer the existence of a fact in issue but which does not prove the existence of the fact directly. “A circumstantial case is one which depends for its cogency on the unlikelihood of coincidence: circumstantial evidence works by cumulatively, in geometrical progression, eliminating other possibilities”. Circumstantial evidences are also called ‘Indirect evidences’.