Any judge worth their salt would prohibit or censor witness testimony making conclusory statements, especially based on circumstantial evidence. This is Evidenc

Any judge worth their salt would prohibit or censor witness testimony making conclusory statements, especially based on circumstantial evidence. This is Evidence 101. Everybody knows the so-called "hearsay" rule, but almost every rule in evidence revolves around one core precept--no evidence is per se conclusive, and the function of testimony of any sort isn't to submit conclusions to the question at issue. But implying conclusions is exactly what both the defense and prosecutor are working at; they're constantly playing word games, and some judges would certainly be better than others at seeing through the B.S.