yes because, there is a lack of real evidence, like body sample, evidence from the footage, eyewitnesses, etc, hence a conviction is made
those are based on assumptions, based arguments not facts
It depends on if the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.
circumstantial evidence usually leads to the finding of a concrete evidence thus leading to the conviction of a criminal.
Yes, but there has to be allot of it and it has to be compelling to convict someone purely on circumstantial evidence. But it can and has been done.
yes A person can be arrested based on a confession; getting a conviction is another story. Although it happens often especially if a defendant pleads guilty, juries may want more information to convict than solely on the confession. That's why you need a lawyer.
A defendant can request to be tried by the judge alone. He cannot be forced to do this by any governmental power. It is solely the choice of the defendant.
People have been convicted without proper evidence. The accusation should be investigated; perhaps you did have a gun and fear a conviction based solely on her testimony. I don't know how to prove a negative (that you did not have a gun), but if you did there are other ways to show it besides her say so; other people saw it, there is other evidence of a gun in your possession like bullets or a gun box. This is why you need a lawyer.
in a criminal case to determine if the prosecution proved the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or not....in a civil case to determine if the defendant is liable to the plaintiff as a result of his (the defendant's) action or failure to act and if so to what extent
Based solely on the information provided in the question, NO, they may not legally own or possess a firearm.
Nobel peace prize 2009 was awarded to Obama solely to dissociate the USA from everything that could be linked to conscience and morality on any count. Hence, Dr Aafia stands convicted.
"What you allude to is based solely upon supposition, you errant detective, you!", exclaimed the defendant. If the detective wishes to allude to gossip, please disallow his/her testimony.
Not sure what you are asking. Draw an inference from WHAT? Draw an inference from WHO? Jurors are supposed to try a defendant based solely on the FACTS produced in evidence and testimony and as instructed by the judge. Given that... jurors are all human. If there is any doubt about anything, the time to hash it all out is in the jury room during deliberation with your fellow jurors.
If you assisted or encouraged the crime, yes. You don't necessarily have to be present to be a part of the criminal activity.
Let's see, there is "hearsay," or the acceptance of evidence based solely on the opinion of others. and there also is search.
malicious prosecution,i would say, is an action for damages against the plaintiff by the defendant on various grounds....but solely out of malice,ill-will,spite....when i mentioned various grounds i meant that they were just excuses that the defendant used to prosecute the plaintiff whereas in fact his main reason was malice. here,the plaintiff and defendant can be old enemies or even competetors in the industrial realm or otherwise.Also, this case of malicious prosecution will not be justified by facts....rather it will be a a case brought about just to injure he plaintiff.
Greenpeace! :-)and the Solely-Green website is:http://Solely-Green.com------------------------------------------------------Solely-Green.com