OT: Re: Going OT Re: (no subject)

From: Eric Dittman <dittman_at_dittman.net>
Date: Tue Feb 18 01:03:00 2003

> > Where is your proof? Circumstantial evidence is not proof.
> >
> Well, if you're in court it is. Here is the standard jury instruction
> on circumstantial evidence in criminal trials in the U.S.:
> "Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct
> proof of a fact, such as testimony of an eyewitness. Circumstantial
> evidence is indirect evidence, that is, proof of a chain of facts from
> which you could find that another fact exists, even though it has not
> been proved directly. You are to consider both kinds of evidence. The
> law permits you to give equal weight to both, but it is for you to
> decide how much weight to give to any evidence."

Okay, for a legal-as-in-U.S.-courts, what do they call evidence
that is circumstantial in nature that requires a leap of faith
to be true?
Eric Dittman
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
Received on Tue Feb 18 2003 - 01:03:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:35:55 BST