Reply to comment

All evidence is CIRCUMSTANCIAL, except for a "credible" eyewitness who actually witnessed the criminal event. Most(90% & up?) cases are won using circumstantial evidence.

Does any jury of one's peers really understand the meaning of "beyond a reasonable doubt"? CSI-type shows have made jurors experts on matters of guilt/innocence and what is or is not reasonable doubt concerning the evidence presented.

Best evidence or not, case presentation is clearly more important than irrefutable evidence of the crime.

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.