No body? No weapon? Just the testimony of 'neighbors' as evidence? Can this be?

[Sahkuhnder]

Can a person be convicted of a crime and go to prison just on the word of his 'neighbors'? Do we require actual physical evidence proof linking a suspect to a crime before we can convict them? I argue that if a jury of your peers can be convinced you are guilty, using whatever legal means, even just verbal testimony, then a guilty verdict can be reached.

I'll just pose the question for now. I have more cases in support as needed.


Quotes from this thread.

Proof is not required in order to assume guilt, if it was then the prisons would be much emptier.

Totally false and incorrect. Proof is most certainly required to convict someone of a crime and thus send them to prison.

What? You think we just toss people into jail because we "think" they commited a crime?

Bold by me.

Yes, we do just toss people into jail because we "think" they committed a crime...If you tell all your neighbors you are going to kill your wife, and then she disappears, you can go to prison based solely on the testimony of those neighbors...

Circumstantial Evidence:
Evidence that proves a fact by means of an inference. For example, from the evidence that a person was seen running away from the scene of a crime, a judge or jury may infer that the person committed the crime.
Link

The key statement in dispute:

Uh...no...no you wont. No body? No murder weapon? No other evidence? BULLCRAP. A prosecuting attorney would be laughed out of court if all he brought to a murder trial was a verbal statement by a neighbor. Now, it MAY be enough to keep an insurance policy from paying off....but a murder charge? Dont be silly.

EDIT: After thinking about this and seeing how you are such a fan of links - by all means please provide me with an example of what you say here - a murder case in which a person was convicted merely upon his comment to his neighbors about killing his wife. There can be no body, no weapon, no direct witnesses, no other evidence at hand, except his neighbors testimony regarding the comment in question. Surely, such a case should be easy to find for someone such as you, since you seem to know all about the issue. So, please, back up your allegation with an actual case with a conviction in order to back up your claim.

Easy, Scott Peterson. Fox News, CNN, Court TV.

The police had decided Scott was the killer and the case against him was being prepared prior to the discovery of the body, i.e., they were willing to proceed without it. The case was so advanced that Scott knew that he was about to be charged with murder and was in the process of fleeing the country when arrested, hours after the body was accidentally found, washed ashore without a head. No murder weapon was ever found. There was some other evidence, mostly verbal circumstantial stuff like we discussed, namely that his wife was pregnant, and he told family members, friends, and a vindictive ex-girlfriend, that he didn't want a child or a family. His fishing story had inconsistencies. The sole real evidence the prosecution planned to convict with was the simple testimony of people and what he said to them, in order to establish a motive that he planned to commit murder because he was unhappy. The evidence that was presented was not actual physical murder type stuff, but supporting evidence for what the people said, things like phone records and voicemail logs. The only real physical evidence was that he didn't have the proper fishing gear, his wife's hair was on some pliers and that he purchased a bag of cement, hardly enough for a capital conviction by itself.

But prosecutors had also been plagued by a dearth of concrete physical evidence, which allowed the defense to speculate that Laci was possibly kidnapped and killed by someone else. Earlier in the case they played up a mysterious van that had been seen in the Petersons' neighborhood the day Laci went missing and even floated the theory that members of a satanic cult had abducted the young expectant mother.

Laci was reported missing from the couple's Modesto home on Christmas Eve 2002, the same day her husband said he went fishing alone in San Francisco Bay. Police searched the Peterson home but found no clues.

Bold by me.

MobBoss provided a helpful link to the evidence in the case. Most of this evidence is not physical evidence of a murder (except as noted above), but goes to support, or refute, the verbal statements and testimony of the people in the case. For example, Scott said he mopped the house, so the mop gets introduced as evidence. Nothing on that list even begins to come close to being strong enough to convict someone of murder, thus my statement that Scott was essentially convicted just because other people 'thought' he did it.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Before reading your post, my first thought was Scott Peterson. That case always seemed strange to me.

 

[Neomega]

I thought scott pederson's wife's body was found.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

I thought scott pederson's wife's body was found.

It was, as discussed in my opening post.

In MobBoss's key statement he claimed:

Uh...no...no you wont. No body? No murder weapon? No other evidence? BULLCRAP. A prosecuting attorney would be laughed out of court if all he brought to a murder trial was a verbal statement by a neighbor. Now, it MAY be enough to keep an insurance policy from paying off....but a murder charge? Dont be silly.

The case against Scott Peterson was being brought to court, without the body. The headless body just happened to wash ashore at the same time Scott was fleeing the country while they were searching for him to arrest him for murder.

 

[Swedishguy]

Well, everything can happen in the New World...

Seriously, 'witnesses' does often give more support than truth, which I find unlogical.

 

[warpus]

The case against Scott Peterson was being brought to court, without the body. The headless body just happened to wash ashore at the same time Scott was fleeing the country while they were searching for him to arrest him for murder.

You could become a suspect on verbal evidence alone, and you might even be charged with murder, but go ahead and try to find an example of a conviction based on solely that.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Well, everything can happen in the New World...

Seriously, 'witnesses' does often give more support than truth, which I find unlogical.

How is it different over there with you 'Old World' types? There has to have been some cases where the physical evidence wasn't there, and all the prosecutor had to go on was the testimony of 'neighbors'. Some guy who stupidly ran his mouth and told everyone what he was going to do, but who then did a good job of hiding the actual physical tracks of his crime. How do you guys treat such a case? Just let him get away with it?

 

[bhsup]

You all may want to research the case of Richard Grissom in Kansas in the late 1980s. If memory serves, he was convicted of several counts of murder without any physical evidence. Pretty overwhelming circumstantial evidence, but still no physical evidence.

 

[Sidhe]

You could become a suspect on verbal evidence alone, and you might even be charged with murder, but go ahead and try to find an example of a conviction based on solely that.

I agree, although most convictions are gained on mostly circumstantial evidence, after all unless you were there with the smoking gun or had blood splattered clothes on when you stepped away from the still warm body and out of the house into an awaiting police car, your not going to be convicted solely on first hand evidence. But in most cases without at least something other than the circumstantial, a case cannot or should not be proven. If it is then it is a traversty of justice, there should always be something scientific or damning tying you to the scene, it's not the 17th century, we can't just go on the opinions of others, this is not the Salem witch trials, it is a legal system based on truth and evidence, not supposition.

Sahkuhnder I thought you were dead? Welcome back.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

You could become a suspect on verbal evidence alone, and you might even be charged with murder, but go ahead and try to find an example of a conviction based on solely that.

These cases are rare, so there isn't that much to work with. The prosecutor in the Peterson case wouldn't have been bringing it to trail without a body if he thought he "would be laughed out of court".

I'm not a legal expert, which is part of the reason I started this thread. I got some cases from Google, but maybe a real lawyer or someone who follows legal proceedings could enlighten us with some even better ones.

 

[Stegyre]

Can a person be convicted of a crime and go to prison just on the word of his 'neighbors'? Do we require actual physical evidence proof linking a suspect to a crime before we can convict them? I argue that if a jury of your peers can be convinced you are guilty, using whatever legal means, even just verbal testimony, then a guilty verdict can be reached.

Sure.
Take the following hypothetical:

Witness No. 1: I saw the defendant shoot the victim in the head and leave the body in the middle of the forest for scavengers to eat.

Witness No. 2: The victim has not been seen, by anyone, since the date of incident related by Witness No. 1.

Witness No. 3 [a police investigator]: We have visited the site identified by Witness No. 1, but found no human remains, although that is not unusual, considering the passage of time and the exposure to animals and the elements. We also never found the gun.

If I were the prosecutor, that would be sufficient evidence upon which a jury could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a murder has been committed and the defendant did it, even though it's all "verbal" evidence.

Whether a particular jury would depends upon the jury and the perceived credibility of the witnesses. But that is what all trials turn on.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Yes when the Swedish prime minister Olof Palme was assained over 100 people confessed. You need proof.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Yes when the Swedish prime minister Olof Palme was assained over 100 people confessed. You need proof.

This is why the credibility of the witnesses must be considered, first by the police, then by the prosecutor, then by the jury.

But what if the witnesses statements are credible, like in the Peterson case? Is a body, a weapon, or a mass of physical evidence absolutely required in order to render a verdict of "guilty"?


And Hi Sidhe.

 

[Stegyre]

There has to have been some cases where the physical evidence wasn't there, and all the prosecutor had to go on was the testimony of 'neighbors'. Some guy who stupidly ran his mouth and told everyone what he was going to do, but who then did a good job of hiding the actual physical tracks of his crime. How do you guys treat such a case? Just let him get away with it?

This, however, is something different: you're trying to convict the defendant solely on the basis of his own statements, without any other evidence: the testimony of the neighbors is only of what the defendant has said. (Ordinarily, this would be hearsay, but the U.S. Rules of Evidence explicitly define hearsay so as not to include the statements of a party.

That hypothetical runs afoul of the corpus delicti rule.

(For those who haven't learned lawyer-latin, "corpus delicti" means "the corpse is delicious, thank you!" Historically, a criminal could beat a murder rap if he ate the body, so it was never found!. )

No, really, I was kidding about eating the corpse. But seriously, the essential premise of the corpus delicti rule is that there must be some evidence that a crime has been committed, apart from the alleged perpetrator's own statements. Thus, if I tell all my neighbors that I killed Jones, I still can't be convicted if no one can show that "Jones" ever existed.

Practically speaking, a prosecutor will need something to tie me to the crime. I could say, "I killed Judge Crater, and he certainly did exist, and has gone missing, but I have a pretty solid alibi, not withstanding my confession.
(Not even my parents were alive in 1930.)

I skimmed the exchanges between you and MB in the original thread and mostly just rolled my eyes: the two of you were talking past each other, and one or the other of you is confusing "evidence" (what the lawyers present) with "proof" (something the finder of fact determines).

 

[Sahkuhnder]

This, however, is something different: you're trying to convict the defendant solely on the basis of his own statements, without any other evidence: the testimony of the neighbors is only of what the defendant has said...

I see what you're saying and the less the defendant said, the better the example would be. The best example of "the basis of his own statements" would be a full confession. Scott Peterson never confessed and I believe still maintains his innocence. The best examples for our discussion would be cases where the conviction was based on the testimony of others, not even of a direct statement like "Scott told me he was going to kill his wife", but like in the real case where Scott just acted guilty and his 'neighbors' thought he was guilty and testified as such. This case would have been a perfect example had the body never appeared. I think (and so did the prosecutor) that they had enough evidence without the body, that the statements of the witnesses as to what they "thought" were enough to convict. But the fact remains that the body did show up, so an even more appropriate case would be welcomed if you know of one.

Practically speaking, a prosecutor will need something to tie me to the crime.

So the question is, is it possible for you to be tied to the crime not by a dead body, not by a murder weapon, not by physical evidence, but by statements from your 'neighbors' (family/friends/etc.) that they "think" you did it? If the 'neighbors' are credible and give convincing, but damning enough statements to sway the jury to vote "guilty", wouldn't that be enough?

I skimmed the exchanges between you and MB in the original thread and mostly just rolled my eyes: the two of you were talking past each other, and one or the other of you is confusing "evidence" (what the lawyers present) with "proof" (something the finder of fact determines).

This comment is great. MB and I have elevated "talking past one another" to a highly-tuned art form.

He says he's a paralegal, so this should be his field of expertise. If so, he shouldn't be having any confusion or making any errors concerning the definition of 'proof', 'evidence', or any other basic legal concepts.

 

[Bamspeedy]

But the fact remains that the body did show up, so an even more appropriate case would be welcomed if you know of one.

You could try looking here:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/

You could use the search feature and put in "no forensic evidence".

Here's one case in England (found guilty)

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/black/seasons_10.html
This is just the chapter where they say the guilty verdict, you can read the other chapters to learn about the rest of the case.

 

[MobBoss]

What people dont realize is in the Scott Peterson case, there were 11 pages of other circumstantial evidence aside from verbal testimony that also indicated Scott Petersons involvement in his wifes murder. Issues surrounding his behavior, the boat, the purchased concrete and other issues all pointed to him as a prime suspect.

And his wifes body was found prior to him being found guilty and the end of the trial.

Bottom line, there was a lot more in the Scott Peterson case than mere verbal allegation by someone. If there is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence it can still be proof enough once it is of a level to suspect someone beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime.

 

[MobBoss]

These cases are rare, so there isn't that much to work with. The prosecutor in the Peterson case wouldn't have been bringing it to trail without a body if he thought he "would be laughed out of court".

Sah...you are really a master at the twisting of words. Again...the prosecutor in the Peterson case HAD FAR MORE than just verbal testimony to bring to court. Your utter failure to recognize this and make the comment you do above shows an extreme dis-engenuousness on your part to discuss the issue fairly.

Again, this prosecutor had much more than just verbal testimony from someones neighbor. Thats why it wasnt laughed out of court.

At least try to give some semblance of honesty in your debate if you wish to continue.

 

[Stegyre]

So the question is, is it possible for you to be tied to the crime not by a dead body, not by a murder weapon, not by physical evidence, but by statements from your 'neighbors' (family/friends/etc.) that they "think" you did it? If the 'neighbors' are credible and give convincing, but damning enough statements to sway the jury to vote "guilty", wouldn't that be enough?

"I think he did it," Isn't evidence.
Generally speaking, it's not even admissible. (Inadmissible lay opinion; shucks, it's probably not even an appropriate subject of expert testimony, but you can probably get attorneys to argue it. After all, if attorneys couldn't disagree, how would we litigators ever make a living?)

However, the statements, "Scott told me [blah, blah, additional foundation, when, where, blah, blah] that he wanted to kill Laci"; "Scott told me [foundation] he'd taken out a large life insurance policy on Laci, so if anything should happen to her, he'd never have to work again"; "Scott told me he'd just got back from an experiment to see if a b!tch could float." --Those can probably come in, under one theory or another (evidence of motive, intent, etc.).

I didn't follow the Peterson trial, although I was living in California at the time. I don't actually know what statements you are referring to. If you have some examples, it's easier to have a concrete discussion.

In general terms, however, I think the prosecutors would have enough to bring their case even without the body: a women goes missing, under suspicious circumstances; here husband makes incriminating statements, engages in some incriminating behavior, and apparently changes his story a few times (caveat: my memory is very vague, and as I already said, I didn't follow the case very closely). I suspect it is always harder to get a conviction in such a case, and a capital conviction would be harder still.
(If I were a juror, it would be a lot harder to pull the switch on someone when I could not be 100% certain there was a dead body somewhere with his fingerprints on it, literally or metaphorically.)

This comment is great. MB and I have elevated "talking past one another" to a highly-tuned art form.

*Ahem* Not something to be proud of, if the point is communication, persuasion, or even showing who is right.
But who am I to preach: like I've never been in such a discussion.

He says he's a paralegal, so this should be his field of expertise. If so, he shouldn't be having any confusion or making any errors concerning the definition of 'proof', 'evidence', or any other basic legal concepts.

"Paralegal" means many different things. I have a great paralegal who was essential to the smooth operation of my first time first-chairing a trial last month. I would have been hopeless without her help organizing exhibits, witness binders, summarizing depositions, etc.
I would never use her for legal research, nor would she want me to.
Yet I have known paralegals in other law offices who researched and ghost-wrote all of their attorney's pleadings. They were, essentially lawyers who had not passed (or maybe even taken) the bar exam. In California not to long ago, there was even the case of a paralegal who essentially hired a lawyer (a very old lawyer) to serve as a front for his (the paralegal's) law practice.

I have no idea what sort of paralegal MB is. But just being a paralegal is no reason for one to assume that this is his "area of expertise." Moreover, I think you miss my point about your conversation: the two of you were using the same terms differently, and those terms could carry different meanings. You bludgeon each other back and forth about how "right" each of you are, when no one has taken the preliminary step to insure you're talking about the same thing.

Of course, that so rarely happens in OT debates.

 

[Stegyre]

Sah...you are really a master at the twisting of words. Again...the prosecutor in the Peterson case HAD FAR MORE than just verbal testimony to bring to court. Your utter failure to recognize this and make the comment you do above shows an extreme dis-engenuousness on your part to discuss the issue fairly.

Again, this prosecutor had much more than just verbal testimony from someones neighbor. Thats why it wasnt laughed out of court.

At least try to give some semblance of honesty in your debate if you wish to continue.

Let's just cut to the chase, unless the two of you really enjoy the debate for its own sake.

I do civil litigation, not criminal, so with that caveat:

A prosecutor may proceed with a case (i.e., get past the probable cause hearing) if he can present sufficient evidence for the judge to conclude that a reasonable jury could find that (a) a crime was committed, and (b) the defendant committed the crime.

That evidence may be direct (e.g., dead body, an eyewitness to the shooting, a falsified tax return (just to insert a non-homicide example) or circumstantial (blood on the floor, incriminating statements made by the defendant). The evidence may be physical, oral, etc. Legally, there is no greater weight given to one type of evidence (direct vs. circumstantial; physical vs. oral). Practically, I always prefer documents over witness testimony (testimony tends to change; documents don't); I always prefer testimony of neutral third-parties (or statements of the opposing party) over the statements of my own client. Generally, these things are more persuasive. But a "reasonable jury" can conceivably rely upon any of them.

Let's assume the Peterson case was solely circumstantial - the body never turned up. I don't doubt MB's account that the prosecution had a 'boatload" of such evidence (literally ). Can we all agree that at some point along the continuum of that evidence, the Prosecutor passed the "probable cause" point (so the Judge allowed the case to go to a jury); and at some further point, the Prosecutor actually had enough to convince, not merely the hypothetical "reasonable jury," but the jury actually empannelled.

If the Prosecutor hadn't had "enough" circumstantial evidence, the Jury would not have convicted. And if there had been even less, the Judge would have thrown it out before it even got to the Jury.

We can endlessly debate where, along the continuum of quantity (and quality) of evidence we pass those mile markers. There is no correct answer! If there was, we wouldn't have trials or appeals: we'd have a computer.

The whole point of a trial (any trial, civil or criminal) is the question of whether the plaintiff/prosecution has sufficient evidence to prove its case (i.e., convince the finder of fact) over the defense.

At least, that's how I see it, as someone who actually has to do it. (And let me say, it's a lot of fun. )