Q: I just sat on a jury for the first time. It was a criminal case and there was not much direct evidence, but a bunch of circumstantial details. We deliberated and found the defendant guilty. Is circumstantial evidence typically what is offered, and is it persuasive most of the time?
T.W., Diamond Bar
Ron SokolA: Circumstantial evidence does not directly prove an element of the alleged misconduct, but provides information from which the trier of fact may draw reasonable inferences to reach a conclusion, or to at least have a certain fact established.
An example of direct evidence is a witness who saw the robbery, including who committed it; circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, would involve a witness who observed a person running from a house with items in his arms.
Here in California, circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence. Each can be taken into consideration as to whether a crime has been proven. If the proof is so substantial that it shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then circumstantial evidence in and of itself is sufficient.
The jury instructions you were read likely included that if there are two reasonable inferences that can be made from what was presented — one which points to guilt and the other to innocence — the jury must go with the interpretation of innocence.
Bottom line, circumstantial evidence is quite common in criminal cases. There may not be a witness who can definitively say what happened from direct personal knowledge. The defendant can also try to challenge the evidence. Hence, a prosecutor may present a case that shows a number of circumstances from which the trier of fact could reach a logical conclusion, namely that the defendant is guilty as charged. As noted above, reasonable inferences may be drawn but proof remains beyond a reasonable doubt.
Q: What is required for evidence in a criminal case to be admissible?
P.T., Torrance
A: Reliability is the focus for evidence to be admitted and to overcome objection to it. This translates into meeting certain key criteria:
Relevance, which signifies the evidence tends to prove or disprove a fact pertinent to the case at hand. Legally obtained, which means the information, item or records seized, found and/or taken complied with the law. Reliability, as noted, which also focuses on the trustworthiness of the information. Although the evidence is probative, is it too prejudicial? This is a decision the judge will make. The testimony andor evidence is not hearsay, or if it is hearsay, there is an exception that makes it admissible. For example, “I heard his dying words!” This is hearsay, said by a third person outside the presence of the courtroom, but “a dying declaration” that can be an exception to a hearsay objection. It is not privileged, which typically would be inadmissible, such as something said between spouses, or between a client and his or her lawyer. The evidence must be offered for a proper purpose.Ron Sokol has been a practicing attorney for more than 40 years, and has also served many times as a judge pro tem, mediator, and arbitrator. It is important to keep in mind that this column presents a summary of the law, and is not to be treated or considered legal advice, let alone a substitute for actual consultation with a qualified professional.
Related Articles
What are some of California’s new 2026 laws? Ask the Lawyer Can they get all those records on me? Ask the Lawyer Are radar guns legal in California? Ask the Lawyer Are those exploding packages legal? Ask the Lawyer What is required to buy a gun in California? Ask the Lawyer
Hence then, the article about is circumstantial evidence really effective ask the lawyer was published today ( ) and is available on Los Angeles Daily News ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Is circumstantial evidence really effective? Ask the Lawyer )
Also on site :