The Evidence Required To Result In A Conviction

That is a very good question because most trials dealing with murder that actually go to trial are those that are circumstantial. The ones that have direct evidence, such as an eye witness, are usually resolved by way of a plea bargain.

The evidence must be enough to convince the members of the public who make up the jury. Do they need one piece of circumstantial evidence, do they need two, three, four or five, or do they need a lot of corroboration? It depends on the quality of that evidence. It would depend on the quality of the people who testify; they may have credibility issues. Those questions are best answered by members of the public who ultimately will serve as members of juries.

An accused person does not have to explain anything. They do not have to prove anything. They just have to raise doubts. But different jurors have different attitudes towards that. Very often, if an accused is faced with even a moderate amount of evidence, some juries will say, we would like to have heard from the accused to explain a couple of troublesome factors. However, some people who face murder charges very often have criminal records and issues that are perhaps difficult to explain or there may be a very devastating direct set of circumstances that will make that individual look bad and will cause an impartial juror to have concerns about the individual’s guilt or innocence.

DNA is a huge advance in technology, which has had an important impact on the judicial system. It has affected both current murder investigations and in delving into past crimes. DNA is probably the single most important factor in vindicating the wrongfully convicted. We hear routinely of people who were found guilty as much as 10, 20, 25 years ago of murders and who have now been cleared by DNA. More and more we are looking at DNA now to clear someone. DNA, which can be produced by bodily fluids (blood, saliva or semen) or even hairs or skin, could place an individual at the scene of a crime. Depending on the exclusivity of that evidence showing that individual at a scene of a crime and if that crime is a murder and if they are the only person there at that time that the individual was murdered, then they have a lot of explaining to do and sometimes they cannot explain.

To conclude, it’s important to realize that the question of enough evidence is determined by the general public. You have to determine what sufficient evidence is. You have to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual charged intended to kill the deceased. Short of direct evidence, what’s enough for you?

—–
If you, or someone you care about, is dealing with criminal law issues in the Ottawa, Ontario Region, contact Engel & Lewandowski Barristers & Solicitors for a consultation.