Not guilty. The evidence isn’t weak; it’s non-existent. This ham sandwich should never have gotten past the grand jury.
Regards,
Shodan
He was asleep. :eek:
Not guilty.
Firstly because the evidence is circumstantial, as noted several times above, but secondly because I don’t think they’d be guilty people getting away because of the poor quality of the prosecuting case. I’d genuinely be inclined to believe they didn’t do it.
In fact, my gut feel would be that it was likely a vendetta against the couple by a former friend or estranged relative. Somebody who could have the keys. The loot might simply have been thrown away.
Assuming we’re talking English law then the previous convictions for handling stolen goods as an adult would probably be allowed as evidence of a propensity to commit the kind of offences charged. The stealing cars as a juvenile probably wouldn’t be admissable, but is still considered to be in the same “category” of offences as burglary so a case could be argued for it.
This wouldn’t change the fact that the rest of the evidence is highly circumstantial and I certainly wouldn’t convict based on it.
Bear in mind also that under English law the jury may draw “such inferences as appear proper” from the failure of an accused to give evidence, or refusing to answer questions put to them
Not Guilty. I think Miss A stole her own stuff because she was short of cash after buying the house. It was all misdirection on her part about having an alibi - the stuff was gone before she went to the library.
StG
4 years working close with law enforcement opinion:
You got nothin’, and the DA wouldn’t even bother to prosecute.
Not enough hard evidence, circumstantial fluff – not guilty.
I have a question for Bricker and any other American attorneys still reading this thread. A number of folks have mentioned they wouldn’t convict because the evidence is circumstantial. While I agree that the evidence is circumstantial (at best) and that the case is extremely weak, I have it in my head that you can convict someone based solely on circumstantial evidence if it is strong enough to lead you to the belief that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Am I correct about this, or did I make that up?
You’re correct. Circumstantial evidence alone can sustain a conviction, if there’s enough of it. As Thoreau put it, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.” 
Scott Peterson could tell you a thing or two about this.
I, like most people, think he was probably guilty for the murder of his wife, Laci, but the case which convicted him was resoundingly circumstantial: he was in the area where the body was believed to have been dumped; he acted in a suspicious manner and he had a mistress. There was not a single shred of forensic evidence which linked him to the crime.
As I said, I feel that he probably did it, but I’ve got to admit being a little unsettled that a man could be convicted of murder with such a shaky case.
I agree completely. The Jury could not have voited to convicted based upon “no reasonable doubt” but instead I think they voted based upon “it was a really horrible crime and someone has to pay and the husband is the most likely killer”. Bad choice, IMHO.
Absolutely correct.
It’s well to remember what circumstantial evidence is. It is simply indirect evidence – items which imply the truth of falsity of the facts in question but do not directly establish it.
In almost every instance, fingerprints are circumstantial evidence. DNA results are circumstantial evidence. They prove that the person whose fingerprints are found on an object touched the object, or whose DNA is found somewhere was there. Together with other facts, their existence may lead the trier of fact to infer guilt. But merely touching an object is not usually a crime. The existence of fingerprints are a circumstance that may help the trier of fact determine a fact.
I’m going to disagree with shefdave: I believe that the defendents’ criminal records, if any, are not mentioned in U.K. trials - though a smart defence barrister will certainly highlight it when his clients have no criminal record.
Regrettably, Lissa has no point about finding outlets for the stolen goods: Mr X is a builder and this is widely known as a trade where one has ready access to criminals (according to a friend of mine, the shrinkage is phenomenal).
As for the OP, on the way he presented it, my verdict would be Not Proven if in Scotland, and Not Guilty if elsewhere in the U.K…
An interesting question arises: the defence claims that these are gambling winnings. At what point do they become liable for tax? Is liability for tax suspended until after the case is decided, or could the prosecution use any non-declaration of winnings as evidence of guilt?
Question: Would a builder who “knows people” be able to off-load jewelery and electronics as easily as he would wood or piping? I mean, if the people he knows buy the wood and other materials because they have a use for them, it’s one thing, but would they be able to find buyers for video equipment?
And I am going to disagree with your disagreement. Under English law a defendant’s previous convictions can be admitted as evidence of either a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged, or of a propensity to be untruthful in general (e.g. previous conviction for perjury)
It’s true that the court has a fairly wide discretion not to admit evidence of previous convictions [s.101(3)] if it would have “such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings” to do so, but previous convictions for property crimes would have nowhere near the same prejudicial effect as say, sexual assault on children or something similar. I’m fairly sure the previous handling stolen goods convictions could be admitted here. The stealing cars as a juvenile may well be excluded, depending how long it’s been since the convictions, and arguably because they’re not as relevant.
I stand corrected. Colour ignorance fought
I also immediately decided on “Not Guilty”. I certainly think that there’s a chance that Mr. and/or Mrs. X may have done it, but I can’t be anywhere near reasonably sure.
Well, in the past I’ve put it this way: let’s say you make a nice chocolate cake and you leave it up on the counter. You step out of the kitchen for a while. When you come back, a chunk of cake is missing, as though grabbed by a tiny hand. Your three-year-old child’s stool is next to the counter, right by the cake. There are chocolatey handprints on the walls leading to your child’s room. And, your three-year-old is in his room with chocolate all over his face.
Now, all of that evidence is circumstantial. But, is there any doubt in your mind that your kid had himself some cake?
Now, wait, I have to be serious now. What kind of evidence is not circumstatial? Eyewitness and video? Confession?