The testimony of the undercover officer, or paid informant, that made the buy - or the eyewitness observation of the officer who witnessed a sale - the narcotics themselves - the marked money used to make the buy - a combination of any or all of these things.
No, an IP address alone is not sufficient evidence to convict someone of a crime. Additional evidence is typically needed to establish a connection between the IP address and the individual responsible for the crime.
In a court of law, the number of witnesses needed to convict someone varies depending on the case and the evidence presented. Generally, there is no specific number of witnesses required for a conviction. The decision to convict someone is based on the strength of the evidence and whether it proves the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sufficient probable cause and evidence to place the defendant inside the location which was burglarized.
Anything that can legally be admitted that would convince a juror that someone has committed a crime.
A confession alone is not always enough to convict someone of a crime. Other evidence, such as physical evidence or witness testimony, is typically needed to corroborate the confession and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Confessions can be challenged in court if they are obtained improperly or under duress.
2
The difference is: in civil trials it is a "preponderance of evidence," whereas in a criminal trial it is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two credible witnesses.
Sixty Seven senators are needed to convict a government official in an impeachment trial.
"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
All twelve.
More information is needed in order to answer. If the property was seized as "contraband" or "evidence" or it had something to do with the transportation of narcotics, you probably cannot regain it, it is forfeited to the government.