Circumstantial Evidence
The long-delayed murder trial of Michael Goodwin is finally over. Goodwin was charged with the murder of a former business associate, Mickey Thompson, and his wife.
The Thompsons lived in the small, wealthy foothill community of Bradbury. Two black men rode up on bicycles and shot the couple. Goodwin fled the country, and supposedly lived on a sailboat in the Caribbean for years, but ultimately returned. He was arrested, tried and convicted.
No one saw him do it, and there was no physical evidence such as DNA, fabric, or ballistics connecting him to the crime. The actual killers have never been found and for all we know may have been killed themselves. The evidence consisted, among other things, in Goodwin's threats to kill Thompson, his flight, and reports by witnesses who said they remembered, years later, that they had seen Goodwin in the neighborhood shortly before.
I'm not going to rehash the trial. The papers have done that, and no doubt there will be a book out before long.
The point here is about the law of evidence. Many non-lawyers think that "circumstantial evidence" is legally inferior to direct evidence, as when a witness says he saw the event in question. Not so. Circumstantial evidence has the same standing as direct evidence, and a jury can convict a defendant even of murder based entirely on circumstantial evidence. (In the Goodwin case, there was some direct evidence--descriptions of the crime scene, autopsy results, and so on).
Here we have motive and opportunity, flight as reflecting consciousness of guilt, and the evidence of Goodwin's presence at the scene before the killings. All of this is circumstantial evidence, and it's undoubtedly legally sufficient to convict. On appeal, the fact that the evidence may seem thin won't be enough for a reversal; if a reversal comes it will be due to legal error, not insufficiency of the evidence. An appellate court doesn't need to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It just has to find sufficient evidence to make out a case on which a jury could convict.
So, surprise and delight (or annoy) your friends. Next time they say, "It's only circumstantial evidence," set them straight.
The Thompsons lived in the small, wealthy foothill community of Bradbury. Two black men rode up on bicycles and shot the couple. Goodwin fled the country, and supposedly lived on a sailboat in the Caribbean for years, but ultimately returned. He was arrested, tried and convicted.
No one saw him do it, and there was no physical evidence such as DNA, fabric, or ballistics connecting him to the crime. The actual killers have never been found and for all we know may have been killed themselves. The evidence consisted, among other things, in Goodwin's threats to kill Thompson, his flight, and reports by witnesses who said they remembered, years later, that they had seen Goodwin in the neighborhood shortly before.
I'm not going to rehash the trial. The papers have done that, and no doubt there will be a book out before long.
The point here is about the law of evidence. Many non-lawyers think that "circumstantial evidence" is legally inferior to direct evidence, as when a witness says he saw the event in question. Not so. Circumstantial evidence has the same standing as direct evidence, and a jury can convict a defendant even of murder based entirely on circumstantial evidence. (In the Goodwin case, there was some direct evidence--descriptions of the crime scene, autopsy results, and so on).
Here we have motive and opportunity, flight as reflecting consciousness of guilt, and the evidence of Goodwin's presence at the scene before the killings. All of this is circumstantial evidence, and it's undoubtedly legally sufficient to convict. On appeal, the fact that the evidence may seem thin won't be enough for a reversal; if a reversal comes it will be due to legal error, not insufficiency of the evidence. An appellate court doesn't need to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It just has to find sufficient evidence to make out a case on which a jury could convict.
So, surprise and delight (or annoy) your friends. Next time they say, "It's only circumstantial evidence," set them straight.
Labels: criminal law, evidence, Goodwin, law, trials
posted by Grumpy Old Man | 6:22 AM
1 Comments:
True, there was no direct evidence as to Goodwin.
There was direct evidence as to the crime scene, etc. That's all I intended to say.
I wasn't at the trial, so I don't know how strong a circumstantial case there was.
I do agree that "what else can it be?" should not be sufficient to convict.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home