Chapter 4 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence and the Use of Inferences

EVIDENCE AND PROOF THE MEANS OF ESTABLISHING AND PROVING THE TRUTH OR UNTRUTH OF ANY FACT THAT IS ALLEGED IS WHAT IS KNOWN AS EVIDENCE PROOF IS THE RESULT OF EVIDENCE AND EVIDENCE IS THE MEANS OF ATTAINING PROOF THE BURDEN-OF-PROOF REQUIREMENT IS ACTUALLY TWO BURDENS: BURDEN OF PRODUCTION WHICH REQUIRES THE PARTY WITH THE BURDEN ON A FACTUAL ISSUE TO INTRODUCE SUFFICIENT RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE FACT AT ISSUE BURDEN OF PERSUASION WHICH REQUIRES THE PARTY WITH THE BURDEN TO PRODUCE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PERSUADE THE FACT FINDER THAT A FACT EXISTS

THE REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD IN ORDER TO CONVICT AND PUNISH A DEFENDANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED, EVERY ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CRIME MUST BE PROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT COURTS AND LEGAL SCHOLARS HAVE NOT REACHED A CONSENSUS ON THE EXACT DEFINITION OF REASONABLE DOUBT DUE TO THIS THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT TRIAL JUDGES GIVE JURIES CAN DIFFER FROM STATE TO STATE AND FROM COURT TO COURT WITHIN A STATE

THE REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD (Cont.) DUE TO THESE DIFFERENCES THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS HAD TO CONSIDER IF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE HAS BEEN SATISFIED BY A “REASONABLE DOUBT” INSTRUCTION THE INSTRUCTIONS MUST INFORM THE JURY THAT THEY MUST JUDGE THE GUILT OF THE DEFENDANT ACCORDING TO A HIGH DEGREE OF CERTAINTY THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO UPHELD DEFINITIONS OF REASONABLE DOUBT THAT SPOKE TO THE DEGREE OF DOUBT

THE REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD (Cont.) FROM THESE CASES IT CAN BE SAID THAT REASONABLE DOUBT IS LESS THAN “ACTUAL SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT” BUT MORE THAN “A MERE POSSIBLE DOUBT” A JURY SHOULD NOT FIND A DEFENDANT GUILTY BECAUSE IT DID NOT HAVE “SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT” ABOUT THE DEFANDAT’S GUILT BUT IT SHOULD NOT REFUSE TO FIND THAT SAME DEFENDANT GUILTY SIMPLY BECAUSE A “MERE POSSIBLE DOUBT” EXISTS ABOUT THE DEFENDANT’S GUILT

DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE DRAWN ON THE PART OF THE FACT FINDER DIRECT EVIDENCE, CIRCUMSTANCIAL (INDIRECT) EVIDENCE OR BOTH CAN BE USED TO PROVE EACH AND EVERY ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF A CRIME CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS THAT WHICH INDIRECTLY PROVES OR DISPROVES A FACT IN ISSUE AND THE FACT FINDER MUST REASON OR DRAW INFERENCES. DIRECT EVIDENCE IS THAT WHICH PROVES OR DISPROVES A FACT IN ISSUE WITHOUT ANY REASONING OR INFERENCES BEING

DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE (Cont.) DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE MUST ALSO BE USED TO PROVE MENTAL ELEMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF MANY CRIMES

INTENT THE LAW INFERS THAT PEOPLE INTEND THE REASONABLE, FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR INTENTIONAL AND DELIBERATE ACTS TO PROVE INTENT THESE INFERENCES MUST FLOW RATIONALLY FROM THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN COURT

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN SOME CASES, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ALONE IS USED WHEN ONLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS USED, MANY STATES DO NOT FOLLOW THE FEDERAL RULE STATED IN THE HOLLAND DECISION BUT ADD REQUIREMENTS HOLLAND V. U.S., “THAT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS … NO DIFFERENT FROM TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE.” IN A FEW CRIMES PROSECUTORS ARE LIMITED TO DIRECT EVIDENCE IN PROVING THE OFFENSES

MEANS-OPPORTUNITY AS CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE When eyewitness evidence is not available, the three questions used in investigating crimes are: Who had the means of committing the crime? Who had the opportunity to commit the crime? Who had the motive to commit the crime? Evidence that a person satisfied one or all of these circumstances could make the person a suspect, justifying further investigation Evidence tending to establish motive can take a variety of forms. Defendants may also use circumstantial evidence by presenting a fact from which a strong inference of innocence could be drawn

FINGERPRINTS AND SHOEPRINTS AS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INFERENCES CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE PRESENCE OF FINGERPRINTS AND SHOEPRINTS AT A CRIME SCENE, MAKING THEM CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THE PRESENCE OF FINGERPRINTS AT A CRIME SCENE IS INSUFFICIENT BY ITSELF TO SUPPORT A GUILTY FINDING. EVEDENCE MUST BE PRESENTED, BY THE PROSECUTION, THAT REASONABLY EXCLUDES THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE FINGERPRINT WAS IMPRESSED AT A TIME OTHER THAN WHEN THE CRIME WAS BEING COMMITTED

SHOEPRINTS ARE NOT PART OF THE HUMAN BODY, THUS THE USE OF THEM IS DIFFERENT THAN THAT OF FINGERPRINTS IT MUST BE SHOWN THAT THE SHOE BELONGED TO THE DEFENDANT AND THEN AN INFERENCE OF USE BY THE DEFENDANT COULD BE DRAWN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE MAY PRODUCE INFERENCES THAT NEED ONLY TO BE REASONABLE, NOT NECESSARY OR INESCAPABLE THE JURY IS PERMITTED TO REACH A CONCLUSION USING THE INFERENCES BUT IT IS UP TO THE PROSECUTION TO PERSUADE THE JURY TO MAKE THE INFERENCE

INFERENCES DRAWN FROM OTHER BAD ACTS OR OTHER CONVICTIONS OF DEFENDANTS A DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH A CRIME MUST ANSWER FOR ONLY THAT CRIME AT HIS TRIAL DUE TO THE PREJUDICE IT COULD CAUSE IN THE MINDS OF THE JURY OR FACT FINDER, EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMES OR OTHER PRIOR BAD ACTS ARE GENERALLY HELD TO BE INADMISSIBLE THERE ARE, HOWEVER, EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE FORBIDDING EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMES OR BAD ACTS (SEE RULES 404(B), 413,& 414 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE)

WHERE NO INFERENCES SHOULD BE DRAWN WHEN A DEFENDANT OR SUSPECT ASSERTS THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, AN INFERENCE OF GUILT SHOULD NOT BE DRAWN WHERE INFORMATION IS PROTECTED BY THE RAPE SHIELD LAW THE CESSATION OF SIGNATURE CRIMES AFTER THE ARREST OF A SUSPECT WHERE A SUSPECT SEEKS TO CONTACT A LAWYER

USING DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE FINDING ILLEGAL DRUGS IN A MOTOR VEHICLE DURING A LAWFUL STOP OF A VEHICLE, AN OFFICER MAY HAVE SEEN OR SMELLED ILLEGAL DRUGS AN INFORMANT OR OTHER SOURCE MIGHT HAVE PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DRUGS WERE IN THE VEHICLE THE INFERENCE OF ILLEGAL POSSESION IS STRONGEST AGAINST THE OWNER AND DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE, WHEN MORE THAN ONE PERSON IS IN THE CAR THE LOCATION OF THE DRUGS, THE AMOUNT OF ILLEGAL DRUGS FOUND, THE CRIMINAL RECORD OF THE PASSENGER AND THE PASSENGER’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DRIVER AND OWNER WOULD ALL BE CIRCUMSTANCIAL FACTORS IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT TO CHARGE THE PASSENGER

USING DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE (Cont.) PROVING THE CRIME OF POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL DRUGS WITH INTENT TO DELIVER WHEN A DEFENDANT APPREHENDED IN THE ACT OF SELLING ILLEGAL DRUGS WHEN THE DEFENDANT HAS A LARGE QUANTITY OF ILLEGAL DRUGS IN HIS/HER POSSESSION & BY THE WAY IT IS PACKAGED THE POSSESSION OF BEEPERS AND/OR GUNS ALONG WITH THE ILLEGAL DRUGS

USING DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE (Cont.) PROVING PHYSICAL AND SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN WHERE AN ADULT HAS SOLE CUSTODY OF A CHILD AND IT IS SHOWN THAT THE INJURY WAS NOT ACCIDENTAL OR SELF-INFLICTED WHEN THE VICTIM IS A CHILD, SEXUAL INTERCOURSE OR ABUSE IS SHOWN EVEN IF NO PHYSICAL FORCE WAS USED AND NO THREATS WERE UTTERED BY THE ADULT (FORCIBLE COMPULSION)

USING DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE (Cont.) PROVING THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS THE DRIVER OF A MOTOR VEHICLE WHERE A WITNESS TESTIFIES THAT HE/SHE SAW THE DEFENDANT CLIMB OUT OF THE DRIVER’S SEAT OF THE TRUCK WHILE ANOTHER PERSON TOOK HIS PLACE AN INTOXICATED PERSON IS FOUND IN THE DRIVER’S SEAT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE PARKED ON PRIVATE OR PUBLIC PROPERTY WITH THE KEY IN THE IGNITION WHERE THE VEHICLES OWNER HAS A SUSPENDED DRIVER’S LICENSE

PROVING CORPUS DELICTI BY DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE IN ALL CRIMINAL CASESE, THE STATE OR GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT: A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY SOMEONE (CORPUS DELICTI) AND THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE OFFENSE CORPUS DELICTI MAY BE PROVED BY A COMBINATION OF DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR BY EITHER ALONE THE CORPUS DELICTI OF MOST CRIMES IS ORDINARILY PROVED BY DIRECT EVIDENCE, AS WHEN THE VICTIM OR A WITNESS TELLS THE POLICE OF THE CRIME

PROVING CORPUS DELICTI BY DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE (Cont.) THE CORPUS DELICTI OF OTHER CRIMES ARE PROVED BY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE; A BURGLARY IS SHOWN BY A BROKEN WINDOW AND MISSING VALUABLES THE CORPUS DELICTI OF A MURDER COULD BE PROVED BY A DEAD BODY WITH A KNIFE IN THE CHEST WHEN AN ATTEMPT IS MADE TO PROVE CORPUS DELICTI BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT THE EVIDENCE MUST BE SO CONCLUSIVE AS TO ELIMINATE ALL REASONABLE DOUBT IN CONCLUDING THAT A CRIME WAS COMMITTED

THE SUFFICIENCY-OF-EVIDENCE REQUIREMENT TO JUSTIFY A VERDICT OR FINDING OF GUILT ONE OF THE MOST COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF A JURY VERDICT OR A JUDGE’S FINDING OF GUILTY IS THAT OF INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE (SUFFICIENCY-OF-EVIDENCE REQUIREMENT) DEFENSE ARGUES THAT THERE WASN’T SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT/ FINDING OF GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT EITHER DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WILL SUPPORT A FINDING OF GUILT IF THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO PROVE ALL OF THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED

THE USE OF PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES THE PRESUMPTION STATED IN THE JURY INSTRUCTION IS ORDINARILY REFERRED TO AS THE “PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE” THIS PRESUMPTION CAN BE REBUTTED BUT THE STATE MUST CARRY THIS BURDEN THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL THIS PRESUMPTION IS MANDATORY CONCLUSIVE OR IRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONS ARE THOSE THAT CANNOT BE OVERCOME BY EVIDENCE SHOWING OTHERWISE INFERENCES ARE REASONABLE CONCLUSIONS OR DEDUCTIONS THAT FACT FINDERS MAY DRAW FROM THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THEM

AN INFERENCE IS A CONCUSION THAT A JURY OR JUDGE MAY MAKE BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED PERSONS CHARGED WITH A CRIME HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IF A JURY INSTRUCTION INTERFERES OR INFRINGES UPON THE JURY’S OBLIGATION TO DETERMINE AND DECIDE ISSUES OF FACT, A VIOLATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO JURY HAS OCCURRED

RES IPSA LOQUITUR THE DOCTRINE, RES IPSA LOQUITUR (“THE THING SPEAKS FOR ITSELF”), USED IN BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LAW, PERMITS BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE, A JURY TO DRAW A CONCLUSION