You can't tell a lot about the outcome of a trial by the opening statements, but if you have watched them WTOL has the complete video of both, it does give you an idea as to how the prosecution and the defense is looking at this trial.
I'll say it for those of you who watched it, while I think Mr. Konop did a good job, I couldn't help thinking of the "if it does not fit you must acquit" statement as he made the comparison of the puzzle pieces. Which was a good analogy, it was just a thought that hit me as I heard him repeat the not fitting statement.
This is a circumstantial evidence trial, yet people are found guilty based on circumstantial evidence. The next few weeks will determine that no matter how well either side did on opening arguments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Lisa,
I was under the impression that, using purely circumstantial evidence, you couldn't be found guilty of murder.
What am I missing here?
From my understanding you can be found guity of certain categories of murder using circumstancial evidence.
this is on the decision to change the charge to murder rather than aggravated murder.
It is harder to convict someone on a purely circumstancial case but it does happen. Scott Peterson as one example was convicted on circumstancial evidence.
Might be helpful to you:
The state need not provide direct and positive proof that a crime was committed. State v. Ledford (Jan. 24, 2000), Clinton App. No. CA99-05-014. Additionally, the state may rely upon circumstantial evidence in proving the corpus delicti.
State v. Nobles (1995), 106 Ohio App.3d 246, 262.
That's why it all comes down to reasonable doubt. Is there enough circumstantial evidence to go beyond reasonable doubt.
Lisa,
Got it!
Post a Comment