Can a person be found guilty based purely on statistical evidence? Imagine that there is a home care worker Alice who takes care of some great number of outpatients. Some significant proportion of them have reported thefts, although none of them suspect Alice. Since her patients are elderly and not particularly alert, they're not very useful as witnesses and in no single situation is there definitive proof that it is she that stole from them. For the sake of this hypothetical, let's say that thefts in general are common in this area, but that Alice's patients are far more likely to be stolen from than others. So for each individual crime there is reasonable doubt as to Alice's guilt, but the totality of the cases are such that it is extremely unlikely that she didn't commit at least several acts of theft (although we cannot say for certain which ones). Is there a name for situations like these? And if it's not too broad of a question: how are they handled?
Is there a name for situations like these? Yes: Circumstantial evidence. In R v Xu, Justice Katz explains how it works: [163] In a circumstantial case, the Court must look to the combined effect of a number of independent items of evidence when considering each charge. While each separate piece of evidence must be assessed as part of the inquiry, the ultimate verdict on each charge will turn on an assessment of all items of evidence viewed in combination. The underlying principle is that the probative value of a number of items of evidence is greater in combination than the sum of the parts. The analogy that is often drawn is that of a rope. Any one strand of the rope may not support a particular weight, but the combined strands are sufficient to do so. The logic that underpins a circumstantial case is that the defendant is either guilty or is the victim of an implausible, unlikely series of coincidences. [164] When assessing the evidence in a circumstantial case, it is not sufficient to evaluate each separate strand of evidence in isolation and then stop. Having considered each strand of evidence separately, it is necessary for the decision-maker to then stand back and assess the cumulative effect of all of the different strands of evidence. Consideration of the onus and standard of proof only occurs at the second stage of the process. The individual strands of evidence do not have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The onus and standard of proof only comes into play once the combined weight of all of the strands of evidence is being considered. If Alice is the only care worker for the patients who have reported theft, the cumulative effect of the totality of the individual strands of evidence could well be enough to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (whereas none of the strands alone could be sufficient). But if there are other care workers who could do that, the probability of guilt slashes down proportionally, so no real prospect for Alice to be convicted.
Truth is a defense to defamation Bob must prove the truth of his statement if Rob sues - there is a reverse onus for this defense. Because this is a civil trial the burden is balance of probabilities. Provided Bob can prove Rob stole his bike he will win. A conviction for doing so is pretty good (but not necessarily conclusive) evidence. Absent that, Bob would need other evidence. Of course, if Bob has said that Rob was convicted of stealing the bike, he’s going to lose.
Yes and No See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967): What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. The glass has clearly been "knowingly exposed" and if that glass was, on the normal methods of examination by the officer (sight, smell etc.), evidence of a crime then it would be able to be used as evidence. However, any DNA on that glass is not "knowingly exposed" - finding the DNA requires a laboratory, specialised equipment and trained technicians.
One wouldn't be able to make a claim about a driving record without it being testimony. Testimony will be challenged during cross examination. The prosecutor won't be able to bring up prior bad acts (such as previous speeding tickets) but will most certainly be allowed to rebut any claim of no prior bad acts made by a defendant. When the defendant claims a spotless driving record the defendant is introducing character or a character trait into the trial. Once introduced by the defendant the prosecutor will be allowed to challenge the credibility of that statement and, therefore, the credibility of the witness. Imagine the following interaction: Defendant: I have a spotless driving record. Prosecutor: Are you saying you've never been issued a traffic ticket? Defendant: Um, Uh, well... When a defendant goes to court they are facing a specific charge. The prosecutor will present evidence that supports that charge and it is up to the defendant and his attorneys to sow reasonable doubt within the jury, or at least one juror. By presenting character, the defendant may appear to be saying either, "Hey, it was my first time let me off," or, "I've never done it before so I couldn't have done it this time." Either way, it probably won't create reasonable doubt in the juror's mind about the specific charge they're weighing and it has the potential to open a can of worms that would be unfavorable to the defendant.
england-and-wales Scenario 1: If a person is acquitted of an offence, and evidence later shows that someone else committed it instead then there's nothing in law preventing that second person being prosecuted - assuming all the relevant conditions are met. Scenario 2: If a person has been convicted of an offence, but evidence later shows that someone else may have committed it (independently and in isolation rather than as a co-conspiritor), then in all likelihood the former defendant may have grounds for an appeal on the basis that they have suffered a miscarriage of justice. One option is for their case to be reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission who may refer the case back to the court to determine whether the conviction should be quashed in light of new and compelling evidence. Scenario 3: &quot;Infinite&quot; indictments are theoretically possible (in as much as infinity is possible) but only if there is enough evidence against each and every person to justify them being indicted. If prior indictments resulted in convictions, then loop back to Scenario 2.
This is, in effect a defense of mistaken identity, and an assertion that the person on trial is not in fact the person who committed the crime. It is not legally significantly different from a case where the defendant claims that a witness has identified the wrong person. Exactly how the defense would be conducted would depend on what evidence establishes that &quot;Herschel Greenbaum&quot; committed the crime, and what evidence establishes (or disproves) that the defendant on trial is that same Herschel Greenbaum. The purpose of a trial is to establish or fail to establish the guilt of the person actually on trial, normally the person present in the courtroom. (trials do not establish innocence in the US). &quot;The defendant&quot; is the person actually on trial, even if an incorrect name has been used in bringing the charge. In such a case people would need to be careful about evidence that applies to a person named &quot;Herschel Greenbaum&quot; but might not apply to the defendant actually on trial.
The life sentences were based on counts 2 and 4, distribution of narcotics by means of the internet and continuing criminal enterprise. In reviewing the sentencing hearing, all of the evidence indicates that the sentence was based on the nature of his acts, and not anything he did after his arrest. There is no way to know if prosecutors would have been amenable to a plea bargain.
Intent is an element of the offense of murder. If the prosecution can't prove the required level of intent for murder, the defendant may still be convicted of a &quot;lesser included offense&quot; like Manslaughter or perhaps Criminally Negligent Homicide, or even an offense that doesn't require an actual death like Aggravated Assault or an offense that doesn't require proof of an injury like Deadly Conduct. If the defendant is claiming that the intent was not voluntary because of some hypnotic effect then that is basically an insanity plea. Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity face an indefinite commitment to a mental hospital, which can amount to decades of involuntary hospitalization. To learn more about this situation, read about the case of John Hinckley Jr. I personally doubt any jury would actually believe a hypnosis defense, especially without a woo-woo jury foreman, some outstanding work by the defense attorney, and a team of expert witnesses that includes an unrelated hypnotist and a psychologist who didn't believe in hypnosis until examining the defendant in this case... so a Mulder and a Scully.