You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Should circumstantial evidence be the sole basis for a conviction in capital cases
Pages 3 (753 words)
Capital cases are death penalty cases that require an intense investigation on a given case. Evidences obtained from the scene of the crime should be scrutinized diligently to avoid circumstances of laying down a wrong verdict on the case. Being meticulous about the given evidences regarding the crime committed by the assumed convict is normal in such a way that the verdict given may be laid down to the wrong person…
When a prosecutor brings a capital case, which is also called a death penalty case, she must charge one or more "special circumstances" that the jury must find to be true in order to sentence the defendant to death. (http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/52557AC3-B765-4BEE-B51CE8A9811D2939, para 1) These circumstances should be able to give enough proof that a capital crime is committed by the accused beyond doubt. These "special circumstances" should be able to lead the prosecution to the person who has truly committed the crime.
Circumstantial evidence is just as important as direct evidence. These are evidence of facts from which inferences or presumptions can be drawn. Providing circumstantial evidence from a capital crime aids in the conviction of the right person responsible for the crime committed. Prosecutors are able to create a picture of how the crime may have been committed given the circumstantial evidences. It may even lead them to further investigation of the crime that may lead them to the direct evidences that might give them clues as to the actual crime scene. Circumstantial evidence may at the same time provide the investigators a guide to get the right convict. ...
Not exactly what you need?