Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: circumstatntial evidence

There are no statistics on matters like this. Your question suggests that you - like many other people - believe circumstantial evidence is somehow inferior to direct evidence, but that is not true and the law recognizes this fact.

Let me give you an example. Last night it rained here in Los Angeles. I did not actually see or hear the rain, but when I drove in to work I saw that streets and lawns for many miles on end were wet and that pools of water had accumulated in some places where I have often seen this happen during prior rain storms. My conclusion that it rained is thus based entirely on circumstantial evidence, but it is quite reliable and my analysis would likely persuade any jury beyond a reasonable doubt that I am correct.

There is often very little direct evidence in criminal cases -- especially murder cases, since the victim is never around to testify at trial. Prosecutors often rely heavily, or even entirely, upon circumstantial evidence to prove their cases, and there is nothing wrong with doing so.

Re: circumstatntial evidence

Most.