3 ms·

one of the more fun things I learned during criminal court in Texas is that the absence of forensic evidence cannot exonerate an individual. The prosecutor and

one of the more fun things I learned during criminal court in Texas is that the absence of forensic evidence cannot exonerate an individual. The prosecutor and the judge covered that despite not having any forensic evidence, the jury would still be expected to be able to convict the defendant. If you weren't OK with that you weren't eligible to serve on a jury.

alwa 4mo ago
Was your prior assumption that forensic evidence must exist in every case—and that if it doesn’t, then there’s no way to convince a jury of someone’s guilt? As in, as long as I clean up really well afterward, I can pretty much do what I want?
- sidewndr46 4mo ago
  I think you're missing the slippery slope that this goes down. The criminal charges were way too low, given the alleged actions. The state admitted it had absolutely no forensic evidence. The judge was perfectly fine with this and selecting a jury that was OK convicting in this circumstance. This pretty quickly pretty us down a path of "you're guilty of at least one crime since you've been indicted, maybe a more serious one if we have some evidence".
  - brookst 4mo ago
    Does that mean that every single conviction from before the days of forensic evidence is necessarily invalid? If the argument is that forensic evidence decreases uncertainty, well, it certainly doesn’t eliminate uncertainty. Convicting anyone of anything is a slippery slope. The only way to be truly sure is to never do it, ever.
    - sidewndr46 4mo ago
      The case was a shooting. It seemed remarkable they had neither a gun, spent cartridge cases, blood, flesh, wounds, or anything in the way of physical evidence.
      - s1artibartfast 4mo ago
        The question remains what they did have.
        8note 4mo ago
        presumably the local noble didnt like them, and the jury knew to follow along. the south is also known for putting people in prison without even having a charge. just a guilty result
        sidewndr46 4mo ago
        In terms of physical evidence? None.
        s1artibartfast 4mo ago
        Evidence, not physical evidence. The instructions seem entirely reasonable. There is no hard rule for physical evidence. If other evidence is enough to convince 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt, it could be very significant.
    - Spooky23 4mo ago
      The standard of both investigations and the effectiveness of mostly part time police were pretty low. Most police were elected or appointed officials with deputized staff. The levels of training and professionalism were poor. Why do you think many places would execute petty thieves? So few were caught generally speaking the punishment had to be severe.
pseudo0 4mo ago
They are trying to avoid a situation where you end up with one juror who watches a lot of CSI and insists that they need forensic evidence to convict, despite having a dozen eye-witnesses. If a juror cannot imagine a circumstance where the evidence could be beyond a reasonable doubt based on non-forensic evidence, then they aren't suitable to be a juror.
- throwway120385 4mo ago
  For example, if you're sitting in your living room with a bunch of other people, many of whom know each other, and two people start fighting, you are all witnessing a crime and you can also all identify the two people fighting. It would be ridiculous to require DNA evidence in that situation.
  - jjk166 4mo ago
    At the same time though, a bunch of people who know each other and the people allegedly involved could very easily share the same incorrect testimony. You wouldn't believe in bigfoot if 5 guys drinking beers swore they saw him while they were camping. Sending someone to prison or worse is much higher stakes. DNA evidence might be too extreme, but I'd expect some sort of evidence to back up a testimony. "What if the witness was wrong" just seems like always a reasonable doubt, or at least the number of witnesses who would need to corroborate something such that it ceases to be a reasonable doubt is impractically high.
    - DiscourseFan 4mo ago
      Damn its almost as if juries exist to act as the sovereign so the violence which sustains the law can be vested in a general public that cannot be held accountable as a whole, similarly to how at least one member of a firing squad always has a blank.
      - jjk166 4mo ago
        Or perhaps the standards of evidence established for a pre-industrial society when eye-witness testimony was the best that could reasonably be achieved is not necessarily the optimal system for a digital society where everyone carries a high definition video camera in their pocket at all times.
vkou 4mo ago
Five (or fifty-five) people giving unambiguous eyewitness testimony that clearly identified the defendant and the crime he committed, with them all keeping their stories consistent under hostile cross-examination has exactly zero forensic evidence... but if you, as a juror, found all of that persuasive, it sounds like it should be enough to convict.
Spooky23 4mo ago
Individuals don’t require exoneration in court. The prosecution, regardless of unethical grandstanding, have a duty to prove the case without any resaonable doubt. They hold the burden of proof. I would, of course, agree with them as physical evidence isn’t necessarily a requirement to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. But I would certainly draw my own inference from their mendacity if they used those words. Your duty as a juror is to make a determination of fact and apply the law as guided by the judge to reach a verdict. When the prosecutor gives you some blabber approaching instructions, that’s an attempt to influence you.
tick_tock_tick 4mo ago
I mean of course if not 10,000 people could stand in a room, watch someone murder another, and then all 10,000 come and testify exactly who it was and what the jury would not be allowed to convict?
- jojobas 4mo ago
  How about one person and a rape accusation from 20 years ago?
  - tick_tock_tick 4mo ago
    That's the purpose of statute of limitations.
    - sidewndr46 4mo ago
      Didn't many states eliminate or raise those for large categories of violent crimes? This means that a rape today for example could be prosecuted decades from now
  - wildzzz 3mo ago
    A rape accusation just under the statute of limitations is going to require more than just a single accusation. Obviously physical evidence is impossible but they usually go on any information the victim shared with associates ("she told me he raped her the previous night" or there's an authenticated diary detailing the crime), the closeness of the suspect and victim (they knew eachother and likely were in close proximity), any corroborating witness testimony ("I saw him follow her home that night after the party"), and any character witnesses that may have shared similar experiences ("he was rough in bed and wouldn't take no for an answer"). It's difficult to convict on old crimes like this so a DA is going to be very selective on choosing to prosecute, they aren't going to waste their time if the accusation is paper thin or the victim is unreliable. Of course it's entirely possible everyone involved is lying but again, a careful DA is going to do their research before trying the case. A suspect is under no obligation to prove their innocence but when it comes to circumstantial witness testimony, the suspect absolutely must do everything they can to fight the narrative.
cultofmetatron 4mo ago
> If you weren't OK with that you weren't eligible to serve on a jury. same reason they are really out to disqualify jurors who know about jury nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Brendinooo 4mo ago
I mean...yeah? If someone commits a crime and ten people in the room say they were also in the room and that person did it, that shouldn't get thrown out because the suspect didn't leave a fingerprint.
- thephyber 4mo ago
  I think he’s saying that if the 10 people witnessed a murder via gunshot that it would be mighty suspicious if the state didn’t bother to bring any forensic evidence of the shooting to court and instead relied solely on those eyewitness testimonies. At some point the absence of forensic evidence might look more like a deliberate attempt to keep exculpatory evidence out of reach of the defendant than a good faith attempt to prosecute.
  - Brendinooo 4mo ago
    Perhaps, but that coin has two sides. A lot of people have watched a ton of crime shows and that warps their sense of what "reasonable doubt" is.
pc86 4mo ago
This just means that you can't insist someone is innocent despite overwhelming evidence just because they didn't leave any forensic evidence behind which is completely reasonable.
gmiller123456 4mo ago
I'm surprised they'd even need to say that, let alone people who heard it were just learning it. I would imagine the overwhelming majority of cases don't involve forensic evidence. I've only had close involvement in a handful of cases that resulted in a conviction, but none involved forensic evidence. In one they took fingerprints (and the handle to our cash drawer, which they never returned), but that didn't result in a conviction.
me-vs-cat 4mo ago
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The expectation of evidence makes its absence significant, but not definitive.

alwa 4mo ago

Was your prior assumption that forensic evidence must exist in every case—and that if it doesn’t, then there’s no way to convince a jury of someone’s guilt? As in, as long as I clean up really well afterward, I can pretty much do what I want?

sidewndr46 4mo ago
I think you're missing the slippery slope that this goes down. The criminal charges were way too low, given the alleged actions. The state admitted it had absolutely no forensic evidence. The judge was perfectly fine with this and selecting a jury that was OK convicting in this circumstance. This pretty quickly pretty us down a path of "you're guilty of at least one crime since you've been indicted, maybe a more serious one if we have some evidence".
- brookst 4mo ago
  Does that mean that every single conviction from before the days of forensic evidence is necessarily invalid? If the argument is that forensic evidence decreases uncertainty, well, it certainly doesn’t eliminate uncertainty. Convicting anyone of anything is a slippery slope. The only way to be truly sure is to never do it, ever.
  - sidewndr46 4mo ago
    The case was a shooting. It seemed remarkable they had neither a gun, spent cartridge cases, blood, flesh, wounds, or anything in the way of physical evidence.
    - s1artibartfast 4mo ago
      The question remains what they did have.
      - 8note 4mo ago
        presumably the local noble didnt like them, and the jury knew to follow along. the south is also known for putting people in prison without even having a charge. just a guilty result
      - sidewndr46 4mo ago
        In terms of physical evidence? None.
        s1artibartfast 4mo ago
        Evidence, not physical evidence. The instructions seem entirely reasonable. There is no hard rule for physical evidence. If other evidence is enough to convince 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt, it could be very significant.
  - Spooky23 4mo ago
    The standard of both investigations and the effectiveness of mostly part time police were pretty low. Most police were elected or appointed officials with deputized staff. The levels of training and professionalism were poor. Why do you think many places would execute petty thieves? So few were caught generally speaking the punishment had to be severe.

pseudo0 4mo ago

They are trying to avoid a situation where you end up with one juror who watches a lot of CSI and insists that they need forensic evidence to convict, despite having a dozen eye-witnesses. If a juror cannot imagine a circumstance where the evidence could be beyond a reasonable doubt based on non-forensic evidence, then they aren't suitable to be a juror.

throwway120385 4mo ago
For example, if you're sitting in your living room with a bunch of other people, many of whom know each other, and two people start fighting, you are all witnessing a crime and you can also all identify the two people fighting. It would be ridiculous to require DNA evidence in that situation.
- jjk166 4mo ago
  At the same time though, a bunch of people who know each other and the people allegedly involved could very easily share the same incorrect testimony. You wouldn't believe in bigfoot if 5 guys drinking beers swore they saw him while they were camping. Sending someone to prison or worse is much higher stakes. DNA evidence might be too extreme, but I'd expect some sort of evidence to back up a testimony. "What if the witness was wrong" just seems like always a reasonable doubt, or at least the number of witnesses who would need to corroborate something such that it ceases to be a reasonable doubt is impractically high.
  - DiscourseFan 4mo ago
    Damn its almost as if juries exist to act as the sovereign so the violence which sustains the law can be vested in a general public that cannot be held accountable as a whole, similarly to how at least one member of a firing squad always has a blank.
    - jjk166 4mo ago
      Or perhaps the standards of evidence established for a pre-industrial society when eye-witness testimony was the best that could reasonably be achieved is not necessarily the optimal system for a digital society where everyone carries a high definition video camera in their pocket at all times.

vkou 4mo ago

Five (or fifty-five) people giving unambiguous eyewitness testimony that clearly identified the defendant and the crime he committed, with them all keeping their stories consistent under hostile cross-examination has exactly zero forensic evidence... but if you, as a juror, found all of that persuasive, it sounds like it should be enough to convict.

Spooky23 4mo ago

Individuals don’t require exoneration in court. The prosecution, regardless of unethical grandstanding, have a duty to prove the case without any resaonable doubt. They hold the burden of proof. I would, of course, agree with them as physical evidence isn’t necessarily a requirement to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. But I would certainly draw my own inference from their mendacity if they used those words. Your duty as a juror is to make a determination of fact and apply the law as guided by the judge to reach a verdict. When the prosecutor gives you some blabber approaching instructions, that’s an attempt to influence you.

tick_tock_tick 4mo ago

I mean of course if not 10,000 people could stand in a room, watch someone murder another, and then all 10,000 come and testify exactly who it was and what the jury would not be allowed to convict?

jojobas 4mo ago
How about one person and a rape accusation from 20 years ago?
- tick_tock_tick 4mo ago
  That's the purpose of statute of limitations.
  - sidewndr46 4mo ago
    Didn't many states eliminate or raise those for large categories of violent crimes? This means that a rape today for example could be prosecuted decades from now
- wildzzz 3mo ago
  A rape accusation just under the statute of limitations is going to require more than just a single accusation. Obviously physical evidence is impossible but they usually go on any information the victim shared with associates ("she told me he raped her the previous night" or there's an authenticated diary detailing the crime), the closeness of the suspect and victim (they knew eachother and likely were in close proximity), any corroborating witness testimony ("I saw him follow her home that night after the party"), and any character witnesses that may have shared similar experiences ("he was rough in bed and wouldn't take no for an answer"). It's difficult to convict on old crimes like this so a DA is going to be very selective on choosing to prosecute, they aren't going to waste their time if the accusation is paper thin or the victim is unreliable. Of course it's entirely possible everyone involved is lying but again, a careful DA is going to do their research before trying the case. A suspect is under no obligation to prove their innocence but when it comes to circumstantial witness testimony, the suspect absolutely must do everything they can to fight the narrative.

cultofmetatron 4mo ago

> If you weren't OK with that you weren't eligible to serve on a jury. same reason they are really out to disqualify jurors who know about jury nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Brendinooo 4mo ago

I mean...yeah? If someone commits a crime and ten people in the room say they were also in the room and that person did it, that shouldn't get thrown out because the suspect didn't leave a fingerprint.

thephyber 4mo ago
I think he’s saying that if the 10 people witnessed a murder via gunshot that it would be mighty suspicious if the state didn’t bother to bring any forensic evidence of the shooting to court and instead relied solely on those eyewitness testimonies. At some point the absence of forensic evidence might look more like a deliberate attempt to keep exculpatory evidence out of reach of the defendant than a good faith attempt to prosecute.
- Brendinooo 4mo ago
  Perhaps, but that coin has two sides. A lot of people have watched a ton of crime shows and that warps their sense of what "reasonable doubt" is.

pc86 4mo ago

This just means that you can't insist someone is innocent despite overwhelming evidence just because they didn't leave any forensic evidence behind which is completely reasonable.

gmiller123456 4mo ago

I'm surprised they'd even need to say that, let alone people who heard it were just learning it. I would imagine the overwhelming majority of cases don't involve forensic evidence. I've only had close involvement in a handful of cases that resulted in a conviction, but none involved forensic evidence. In one they took fingerprints (and the handle to our cash drawer, which they never returned), but that didn't result in a conviction.

me-vs-cat 4mo ago

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The expectation of evidence makes its absence significant, but not definitive.