Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
So they switched seats in the 2 seconds after the wreck, then exited the car?
You're gonna need the Casey Anthony jury to sell that one.
|
You'll find that there are FAR more Casey Anthony jurors in the world than there are jurors that are eager to draw inferences in a criminal proceeding.
I mean people will STILL say "You can't convict on circumstantial evidence" which remains one of the single dumbest statements I've ever heard. But people will die on that hill. Defense attorneys will still argue "The entire case is circumstantial" as though that means a hell of a lot. DNA evidence is technically circumstantial ("His DNA is on the murder weapon therefore we will infer that he used said murder weapon to kill the victim).
Direct evidence is rare. And oftentimes not good. Eyewitness testimony is direct evidence -- "I saw Rice driving" but eyewitness testimony is empirically and demonstrably unreliable as hell.
Yes, you can absolutely draw the inferences to convict and doing essentially exactly what you've laid out. -- "Hey, the video shows he was the second guy out of the passenger side - you think they swapped seats at impact?" -- but prosecutors are loathe to spin that wheel because jurors are stupid and obstinate.