Often these claims
involve circumstantial evidence rather than direct proof.
Not exact matches
There can be hard
evidence (incontrovertiable forensics) and
circumstantial evidence, which is
evidence — i.e. admitted to court — but might turn out to be coincidence (forensics
involved, but not a direct link between individual and crime) or, if testimonial, untrusted.
Your Honor: No, we don't have a tacit admission from the party
involved, Chevrolet, but we think you will find the
circumstantial evidence rather compelling.
Under a 1939 U.S. Supreme Court decision
involving movie tickets, now known as the Interstate Circuit Doctrine, collusion can be proven by
circumstantial evidence when it's clear that without the agreement of the group, each firm would be acting against its own interest, he said.
[19] We have trouble seeing that
circumstantial evidence could prove guilt where it leaves a reasonable (not remote) possibility that the event occurred in a way not
involving the accused.
When there is no direct
evidence of a motor vehicle accident itself, either because the defendant denies being
involved in the vehicle and there are no other witnesses, then
circumstantial evidence becomes important in leading the jury to believe that the accident did in fact occur and the defendant is liable for the accident.
McLachlin C.J.C. explained that an assessment of the sufficiency of such
circumstantial evidence necessarily
involves a limited weighing of the
evidence to determine whether the
evidence is reasonably capable of supporting the inferences the Crown will be seeking at trial, although this weighing process at a preliminary inquiry excludes any credibility assessments or consideration of whether the inferences will in fact be drawn.