6 ms·

Why would it get thrown out?

by extr 3y ago

sambazi 3y ago
circumstantial
- tzs 3y ago
  So? Much of the evidence in most criminal trials is circumstantial. For example fingerprints and DNA are circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is evidence that directly links a person to a crime, which for the most part means testimony of a person who claims to have personal knowledge of the crime. Evidence that requires making inferences to get from the evidence to the crime is circumstantial. A good non-criminal example of direct vs. circumstantial evidence would be if you were trying to prove that it snowed last night and you found someone who said that they woke up at 3 AM and looked out a window and saw it snowing. That would direct evidence because you have someone who claims to have personal knowledge that what you are trying to prove happened actually happened. If instead of a witness who actually saw the snowfall you had a person who testified that there was no snow on the ground when they went to bed but when they woke up in the morning there was snow that would be circumstantial evidence. From that testimony you do have direct evidence that there was snow on the ground in the morning, but you have to make inferences if you are trying to prove that snow fell during the night and so that evidence is circumstantial for proving that.
bmicraft 3y ago
Could've handed the phone to someone else
- lhnz 3y ago
  The evidence would have to be looked at in regards to the totality of the evidence. They couldn't just say you handed the phone to somebody else without knowing this and showing evidence that this was the case. Assertions without evidence are generally not persuasive, and in criminal cases they must prove that you committed the crime beyond "reasonable doubt". The burden of proof is on the prosecution. And, if there was corroboration with the digital trail of the mobile device, and you appearing on a CCTV at a location matching the GPS at some point or chatting to somebody on the phone, it'd possibly further break the insinuation that you didn't have the device during this time period.
  - Retric 3y ago
    In practice reasonable doubt is generally ignored by juries. Interviews of post conviction juries show they often convict people who they have serious doubts actually committed the crime. They say stuff like, “If he’s innocent it will be reversed on appeal.” Risking a bench trial is poor odds as they are significantly more likely to convict when things aren’t clear. Roughly 3/4 the time they agree, but when they disagree judges are ~5x more likely to convict. The difference seems to largely be bias on the side of Judges.
    - lhnz 3y ago
      While the system is not perfect and errors do occur, the claim that juries "generally" ignore the standard of reasonable doubt is a sweeping statement. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a cornerstone of many legal systems and taught and emphasized to jurors in instructions before they deliberate.
      - Retric 3y ago
        It’s a sweeping statement backed up by actual evidence. There’s a common option that someone only gets to trial when there’s significant evidence they are guilty. Which on the surface is a reasonable assumption, but that bias has real impact on people’s behavior. Taking a plea deal as an innocent person is often a very wise decision.
        lhnz 3y ago
        Actually your post containing the sweeping statement doesn't contain any evidence. You haven't substantiated your claim.
        Retric 3y ago
        My statements didn’t included citations but my argument did reference multiple studies and post verdict interviews, a subtle difference. Here’s a quote for my 3/4 agree, 5x more likely to convict when they disagree: “ The judge and jury in the Kalven-Zeisel survey of 3,500 criminal cases agreed in 78% of the cases on whether or not to convict. When they disagreed, the judge would have convicted when the jury acquitted in 19% of the cases, and the jury convicted when the judge would have acquitted in 3% of the cases” https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/forensic-psychology/jury-decisions-vs-judges-decisions/ https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/forensic-psycholog... Feel free to look up some more, there’s some variation here.

Why would it get thrown out?

by extr 3y ago

Why would it get thrown out?

sambazi 3y ago

circumstantial

tzs 3y ago
So? Much of the evidence in most criminal trials is circumstantial. For example fingerprints and DNA are circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is evidence that directly links a person to a crime, which for the most part means testimony of a person who claims to have personal knowledge of the crime. Evidence that requires making inferences to get from the evidence to the crime is circumstantial. A good non-criminal example of direct vs. circumstantial evidence would be if you were trying to prove that it snowed last night and you found someone who said that they woke up at 3 AM and looked out a window and saw it snowing. That would direct evidence because you have someone who claims to have personal knowledge that what you are trying to prove happened actually happened. If instead of a witness who actually saw the snowfall you had a person who testified that there was no snow on the ground when they went to bed but when they woke up in the morning there was snow that would be circumstantial evidence. From that testimony you do have direct evidence that there was snow on the ground in the morning, but you have to make inferences if you are trying to prove that snow fell during the night and so that evidence is circumstantial for proving that.

bmicraft 3y ago

Could've handed the phone to someone else

lhnz 3y ago
The evidence would have to be looked at in regards to the totality of the evidence. They couldn't just say you handed the phone to somebody else without knowing this and showing evidence that this was the case. Assertions without evidence are generally not persuasive, and in criminal cases they must prove that you committed the crime beyond "reasonable doubt". The burden of proof is on the prosecution. And, if there was corroboration with the digital trail of the mobile device, and you appearing on a CCTV at a location matching the GPS at some point or chatting to somebody on the phone, it'd possibly further break the insinuation that you didn't have the device during this time period.
- Retric 3y ago
  In practice reasonable doubt is generally ignored by juries. Interviews of post conviction juries show they often convict people who they have serious doubts actually committed the crime. They say stuff like, “If he’s innocent it will be reversed on appeal.” Risking a bench trial is poor odds as they are significantly more likely to convict when things aren’t clear. Roughly 3/4 the time they agree, but when they disagree judges are ~5x more likely to convict. The difference seems to largely be bias on the side of Judges.
  - lhnz 3y ago
    While the system is not perfect and errors do occur, the claim that juries "generally" ignore the standard of reasonable doubt is a sweeping statement. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a cornerstone of many legal systems and taught and emphasized to jurors in instructions before they deliberate.
    - Retric 3y ago
      It’s a sweeping statement backed up by actual evidence. There’s a common option that someone only gets to trial when there’s significant evidence they are guilty. Which on the surface is a reasonable assumption, but that bias has real impact on people’s behavior. Taking a plea deal as an innocent person is often a very wise decision.
      - lhnz 3y ago
        Actually your post containing the sweeping statement doesn't contain any evidence. You haven't substantiated your claim.
        Retric 3y ago
        My statements didn’t included citations but my argument did reference multiple studies and post verdict interviews, a subtle difference. Here’s a quote for my 3/4 agree, 5x more likely to convict when they disagree: “ The judge and jury in the Kalven-Zeisel survey of 3,500 criminal cases agreed in 78% of the cases on whether or not to convict. When they disagreed, the judge would have convicted when the jury acquitted in 19% of the cases, and the jury convicted when the judge would have acquitted in 3% of the cases” https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/forensic-psychology/jury-decisions-vs-judges-decisions/ https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/forensic-psycholog... Feel free to look up some more, there’s some variation here.