Chapter 5 Direct & Circumstantial Evidence Flashcards
Define & compare direct evidence & circumstantial evidence.
Direct evidence is based on personal knowledge or observation of the person testifying. No inference or presumptions is needed. If the testimony is believed by the jury, the fact it relates to is conclusively established.
Circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact. It is based on inference that the jury must draw rather than personal knowledge or observation of the witness.
Direct evidence will be admissible if it was legally obtained & is not privileged.
Circumstantial evidence is admitted at the discretion of the judge.
Explain how the jury decided what weight to give each fact in the evidence.
When direct evidence is introduced, the jury’s main focus id the decide the creditability of the witness. This revolves around two factors; the demeanor of the witness & the likelihood that what the witness said could have happened.
List 3 technical skills and 3 means of accomplishing the crime that can be used as circumstantial evidence. Describe a crime in which each would be relevant.
Skills:
1 Safecracking
Skill: Opening a locked safe & defendant has been known to crack safes.
Means has tools to open safe.
2 Computer crimes: elaborate embezzlement schemes.)
Skill: defendant has extensive computer programing skills.
Means defendant has access to computers
3. Counterfeiting paintings
Skill: artist made & sold paintings that looked exactly like famous masterpieces.
Means: Defendant had painting & framing supplies
When can physical and mental capacity be used as circumstantial evidence? Give three examples of each.
Physical:
Only a tall person could commit the crime
The suspect outran the victim
Burglary entered a building through a window that open only a few inches
Mental:
Defendant developed a very sophisticated plot to kill the victim
The ransom demand note was written in perfect Shakespearean English
Adult suspect acted like a 7-year-old
Define modus operandi. Explain how it may be used as circumstantial evidence.
Modus operandi: standard operating procedures
Many criminals become creatures of habit & rather methodically commit the same crimes in the same way.
Suspect avoided burglar alarms by entering through the roof. He used a grabbling hook to scale a wall & cut a hole in the ceiling.
When is motive relevant? Give three examples of how motive can be used to infer guilt.
Motive does not have to be proven unless it is included in the definition of the crime.
Husband & wife were in the midst of custody battle. The wife coached one of the children to tell police officer that the father had sexually abused him
Defendant is charge with capitol murder. Someone killed the only witness who could positively identify the defendant as the killer.
Defendant who is charged with embezzlement deposited funds in a foreign bank account and then faked his own death.
Explain how (1) threats, (2) flight from the scene and (3) attempts to destroy the evidence can be used as circumstantial evidence. Give two situations in which each may be relevant.
Make a threat is is circumstantial. Although a person may make threats without planning to carry them out, the fact that the threat was made has some probative value.
Fleeing from the scene of a crime or later attempts to avoid prosecution.
Hiding or concealing evidence raises an inference of guilt, as does destroying evidence.
Two days before the victim’s death, the victim and suspect got into a fight. The suspect shouted, “I’ll kill you for that!”
The suspect fled the country after being released on bail.
Can possession of the fruits of crime or recently acquired wealth be used as circumstantial evidence to infer guilt? Explain.
Yes, the inference is much stronger if the suspect had the fruits of a crime directly after the crime occurred.
Sudden wealth prosecutor will ask the jury to infer that the money came from committing the crime.
Explain what evidence a “character witness” may present to the jury and when the defendant’s general character is admissible evidence.
Character witnesses are used to try to convince the jury that a person did something consistent with his or her character. Most states use reputation as evidence of character.
In most states they are only allowed to testify about a person’s reputation in the community.
- Defendant may try to use his or her good character to convince the jury that he or she did not commit a crime.
- Defendant’s specific character traits may be used to infer that the defendant did or did not commit the crime.
- Specific character traits of the victim may be used when relevant to the crime.
When the prosecution allowed to call character witnesses, and when are the defendants specific character traits admissible?
The prosecution is not allowed to attack the defendant’s character unless the defense has placed character at issue.
Under what circumstances is the victim’s character admissible? Give two examples.
This is common in self defense cases. If it can be shown that the victim was a violent person, it it much easier to convince the jury that the defendant acted in self-defense.
Defendant is charged with murder & claims self defense. The defense will introduce a witness that shows the victim has a reputation of being a bully or the prosecution can convince the jury that the victim was nonviolent nature.
The defendant is a batter women charged with killing her batter. the defense introduced character evidence that the victim was violent and had beaten several of his former girlfriends.
What circumstantial evidence is admissible if the defendant is claiming mistaken identity? Explain.
Prior similar crimes can be used to infer that the witness correctly identified the defendant. Defendant does not have to be charged or arrested with prior crime as long as the prosecutor can call a credible witness who can convince the jury that the defendant committed the crimes.
A 72-year-old man is on trial for bank robbery. He claims witness wrongly identified him as the robber. The prosecution is allowed to show that robberies by senior citizens are very rare and the defendant has been arrested of two bank robberies in the past 3 years.
Distinguish “habit” and “character.” Explain when “habit” is admissible.
Habit & customs are more specific than character traits. A person’s character may include being a liar; lying about one’s age can be a habit.
In most states, evidence is admissible if the person’s habit or custom is so strong that is becomes a semiautomatic response to a particular type of situation. This creates stronger circumstantial evidence that a character trait would
What evidence can be used to discredit the defendant’s claim that the crime was committed without criminal intent? Explain.
In these situations the defendant’s prior acts can be used to show that the current crime was not an accident.
An example would be a theft case in which the defendant knew the victim carried a briefcase with valuables and attempted to switch briefcases with the victim. Defense might say it was a mistake, but the prosecution could call witnesses to show the defendant had tired a similar switch a few months ago.
When, if ever, is the fact admissible that (1) the defendant previously attempted to make false claims under an insurance policy or (2) the defendant offered to plead guilty to the crime? Explain.
(1) If a person has previously filed a false claim, it can be inferred that the current claim is also false. This is useful approach when the defendant has perviously filed false claims in order to recover on insurance policies.
(2) No, unless there is an agreement between the defendant and prosecutor the stipulates that the statements can be used in court if the defendant fails to follow through with the actions he promised to take. This is used when the prosecutor offers a plea bargain in exchange for the defendant giving information regarding other suspects involved in the crime.
