Legal Question in Criminal Law in Michigan

If the jury thinks it is enough, then it is. www.kliszlaw.com

You can read about Michigan criminal law and criminal procedure, including burden of proof, by going to:

www.AggressiveCriminalDefense.com

Many people have been convicted using fingerprint evidence.

If the fingerprints are located in a place that only the burglar's / thief's prints would be ... then it's possible that a jury would convict on that evidence alone (proving the "Who done it?" portion of the elements -- additional proof of the actual B&E having occurred would also be needed, of course).

For example, if the prints were on the handle / lock of a safe that was opened and from which jewelry was stolen ... that's pretty good evidence that the prints belong to the thief. But this assumes that the person didn't have a legitimate reason to have been touching the item where the prints were found; if the person was on a cleaning crew that dusts all over the place, then the presence of that person's prints might not "prove" anything (unless the cleaning crew person's prints were INside the safe, too!).

In another example, if the point of entry was a window that was pushed open and the fingerprint was found where a person would be touching the window in order to open it from the outside, then that's pretty compelling evidence that it was the burglar's print.

So, it all depends on ALL the evidence. Many times, a conviction hinges on the significance of a single piece of evidence, and the weight/importance of that evidence assigned by the jury.