0
Is word of mouth enough enough evidence to convict someone in a drug conspiracy?
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Yes
Another View: No, not directly. "Word of mouth" may be enough to bring drug trafficking to the attention of law enforcement, or lead their investigtion in the right direction, but the evidence that is collected and used to convict the defendant(s) must be collected in accordance with the law and the rules of evidence.
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Can DNA on a cigarette at the scene of a robberey and a persons passed record be enough to convict a person?
No, it's not enough evidence to convict someone. You know that they were there, and you can definitely consider them a suspect, but you can't make a definite conviction.
Why isn't circumstantial evidence enough to convict a criminal?
Becase all evidence must be factual, proveable, and able to be examined by the defense.
Is a picture of a felon holding a gun without a firing pin enough evidence to convict him?
That is up to the police.
What is an example sentence for the word evidence?
The police arrested suspects, but they did not have any hard evidence.
Are sworn statements good enough to convict someone of murder even if there isn't any evidence?
depends on how strong the statements impact is. But usually no
Is just saying someone robbed you enough to convict them?
they should have proof, or be able to identify an object that was accused of being stolen
If you were arrested for being a christian would there be enough evidence to convict you?
Yes, because I would have to swear on a Bible to tell the truth and when asked if I believe God is who He says He is and Christ is who He says He is, I'd have to tell the truth. I would, in essence, convict myself.
Can DNA on a cigarette at the crime scene of a robbery be enough to convict someone?
Not necessarily. It would depend on how much other evidence there is. By itself, DNA on a cigarette only proves that the suspect was physically present at the scene of the crime. It proves he was there at some unknown time, but it does not prove that he was there during the commission of the crime or that he committed the crime. It is a compelling piece of evidence, but it would need to be accompanied by other evidence, in order to ensure a conviction. For example, if eyewitnesses saw the suspect's car fleeing the scene, and if bullets matching those used in the crime were found at the suspect's home, THAT, combined with the DNA on the cigarette, would probably be enough to convict.
When will Americans rise up arrest try and convict Obama for crimes against Americans and the Constitution?
Essentially when enough hard evidence is collected and presented to presume his guilt.
Does circumstantial evidence constitute for reasonable grounds to arrest someone under UK law?
Circumstantial evidence is definitely enough to arrest someone - a person is arrested not just for questioning, but also to preserve other evidence, like forensics. Circumstantial evidence might not be enough for actual charges to be made, but the arrest might yield more concrete evidence.
Can forensics evidence always prove someone guilty?
Forensic evidence alone cannot always prove someone guilty. However, it can provide valuable information to support a case, but other factors such as alibis, witness testimony, and motive are also important in determining guilt. It is the combination of different types of evidence that is typically used to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why is ther little evidence for the evolution of early life forms?
Because of the lack of hard parts. Geological upheaval (this affects all fossils to a certain degree ). To name two reasons that are supported by the evidence. It also hinges on what you mean as " little. " The evidence, by way of analogy, would convict a saint of murder. It is strong enough for that and strong enough to support evolutionary theory
