(818) 995-9452
Prosecutors need convincing evidence to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in California. One common form of proof in criminal cases is circumstantial evidence. Also called indirect evidence, circumstantial evidence does not directly tie the person to the crime. Instead, it suggests guilt by showing facts that point to that conclusion. A judge or jury can use circumstantial evidence to decide whether the person committed the crime.
Have you been accused of a crime in Van Nuys? You need to understand the critical role of evidence in determining the outcome of your case. At the Law Offices of Justin E. Sterling, our legal team will review the evidence against you and collect independent evidence supporting your defense. Our firm includes a team of in-house investigators with law enforcement backgrounds, giving us an edge to analyze your case effectively and identify weaknesses in the state’s case. Contact us today for a free consultation with a Van Nuys criminal defense attorney.
What Is Circumstantial Evidence?
Circumstantial evidence in criminal cases is proof of a fact that isn’t directly about the crime but can still help a judge or jury figure out what happened. They can use this kind of evidence to make reasonable conclusions, like deciding the defendant is guilty based on the surrounding facts.
Unlike direct evidence, circumstantial evidence does not directly prove a defendant’s guilt. Instead, circumstantial evidence may allow a person to “connect the dots” to conclude that a defendant committed a charged offense.
For example, direct evidence in a homicide case might include testimony from an eyewitness who saw the defendant shoot the victim. Circumstantial evidence might come from a witness who did not see the shooting, but saw the defendant running from the scene with a gun in their hands after shots were heard. This evidence could lead a jury to infer that the defendant shot the victim.
How Circumstantial Evidence Is Used in Criminal Cases
People often believe a criminal case requires direct evidence of a defendant’s guilt to secure a conviction. However, a jury or judge may use circumstantial evidence alone to find a defendant guilty in California. Under California criminal law, neither type of evidence is necessarily more reliable or entitled to greater weight. A jury may use circumstantial evidence to prove one fact, which can help them figure out another fact that may tend to prove the defendant’s guilt.
However, California courts instruct jurors that if the evidence can lead to two or more reasonable conclusions, and even one supports the defendant’s innocence, they must choose the one that favors the defendant.
Furthermore, jurors can only make reasonable guesses based on circumstantial evidence and must ignore any unreasonable ones suggested by either side. Therefore, a jury may only convict a defendant based exclusively on circumstantial evidence if the defendant’s guilt remains the only reasonable conclusion jurors can draw from the circumstantial evidence.
Challenges of Circumstantial Evidence in Court
Using circumstantial evidence in criminal cases can come with various challenges, such as:
- Potential misinterpretations – Jurors may take circumstantial evidence out of context or interpret it far differently than the side presenting the evidence expected.
- Biases and prejudices – Because circumstantial evidence allows jurors to infer or interpret other facts, their personal biases or prejudices could lead to unexpected inferences.
- Misunderstanding the burden of proof – A side relying only on circumstantial evidence may struggle to convince jurors who want direct evidence to believe the case.
Defending Against Circumstantial Evidence
A defendant facing prosecution based on circumstantial evidence may pursue various defense strategies to challenge the strength of the evidence.
First, they may attack the reliability of circumstantial evidence, such as witness testimony, hoping to cause the jury or judge to reject the evidence.
Defendants may also argue that the prosecution’s interpretation of the evidence is flawed. They may present an alternative inference from the evidence that tends to prove the defendant’s innocence. Under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for criminal convictions, a jury must accept a reasonable interpretation of circumstantial evidence pointing to the defendant’s innocence.
Defense strategies against circumstantial evidence may also seek to exclude that evidence from a criminal case by arguing that police obtained it by violating the defendant’s rights. For example, police may have data from a defendant’s cell phone that puts them near the crime scene. However, if the police unlawfully seized or searched the defendant’s phone, the defendant can file a motion to exclude that evidence.
Legal Standards for Circumstantial Evidence in Van Nuys
In a California criminal case, a court may admit circumstantial evidence if the court finds it relevant, reliable, and not unduly prejudicial. A judge or jury can use circumstantial evidence to figure out another fact as long as that conclusion makes sense based on the evidence. Furthermore, they can make a series of inferences from circumstantial evidence. Each link in the chain of inferences does not have to lead to another automatically. However, each inference must be reasonable and consistent with the others.
As in all criminal cases, a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the highest standard of proof in the court system. The evidence must be enough to leave a judge or jury with an abiding conviction that a criminal charge is true.
Role of Expert Witnesses in Challenging Circumstantial Evidence
Expert witnesses can also challenge the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence. When circumstantial evidence involves eyewitness testimony, experts can provide opinion testimony regarding the factors that can influence and alter an eyewitness’s perception. Experts can also challenge the reliability of forensic evidence that serves as circumstantial evidence, such as DNA or fingerprint evidence that allegedly places a defendant at the scene of a crime.
Why You Need a Criminal Defense Attorney in Van Nuys
Almost every criminal case relies on circumstantial evidence, even with direct evidence. Regardless of the type of evidence the prosecution has against you, you need a Van Nuys criminal defense lawyer to ensure you receive fair treatment under the law. A criminal attorney can defend your rights, reputation, and future by:
- Carefully looking into your case to find direct and circumstantial evidence that supports your innocence
- Going over the facts to find possible defense strategies
- Explaining your charges and legal options so you can make informed choices
- Strongly fighting the prosecution’s case by trying to block any illegal or unfair evidence
- Creating tailored legal arguments to question the prosecution’s evidence or offer other explanations that point to your innocence
Contact Us Today for a Free Consultation
After an arrest, the outcome of your criminal charges may rest on the strength of the circumstantial evidence in your case. Contact the Law Offices of Justin E. Sterling today for a no-cost, no-obligation consultation with a criminal defense attorney in Van Nuys.
