rmeesig wrote:Show me where it says you can be convicted on circumstantial evidence so I can go prove all of my law professors wrong as well as the partners at my firm....that's just a riot that you even made that statement.
This post is in no way an attempt to bash or belittle you, but I could not help interjecting. Before you make such statements, you should know for sure you are right. Perhaps your law firm should show you how to do a little legal research. Here are a few US Court of Appeals decisions that should clear this issue up.
U.S. v. Cordova Barajas, 360 F.3d 1037
Circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to demonstrate guilt.
U.S. v. Wright, 340 F.3d 724
A conviction may be based on circumstantial or direct evidence or both.
U.S. v. Keene, 2003 WL 21994744
Both direct and circumstantial evidence are considered in determining whether evidence is sufficient to support a criminal conviction, and the government's proof may lie entirely in circumstantial evidence.
- Here is one from the 2nd Circuit, which NY belongs to...
U.S. v. Glenn, 312 F.3d 58
Circumstantial evidence can be as compelling as direct evidence and a conviction can rest solely on circumstantial evidence.
I could cite you dozens more, but I think I have made my point. Although your arguments were flawed, I enjoyed your enthusiam. Good luck with law school.