If you have been accused of a crime, the prosecution will have a difficult time if they cannot present sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges. If there is little evidence or the evidence can be shown by the defence to be weak, it will be very difficult to successfully prosecute the alleged offence. In studying Ciminal Law In Edinburgh, a solicitor knows that without sufficient evidence, a person cannot be charged with a crime. If, on the other hand the defence cannot contradict the evidence that is being presented then generally the prosecution is successful and the accused is convicted.
There are differing forms of evidence that the court may take into account when attempting to determine if the case has merit or not. Criminal law in Edinburgh puts irrefutable physical evidence at the top; this type of evidence is DNA or blood samples from the scene, several eye witnesses to the crime or the possession of the weapon or weapons that were used in the carrying out of the crime. In the event that hard evidence of this nature is not available, the court may consider circumstantial evidence if it can be collaborated with some physical evidence which links the accused to the crime, anything less than this will usually result in acquittal. In a trial situation, criminal law Edinburgh is used by the solicitor to point to the absence of such evidence or to refute the prosecutor’s theory and explanation of what might have happened when there is not enough evidence to support the claim.
Establishing irrefutable evidence can be a daunting task for the investigators and the prosecution. It must be understood that the solicitor for the accused will demand evidence to prove that his client is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. The defence will make efforts to unearth id evidence was recovered illegally, perhaps through an illegal search. If it can be proven the evidence was illegally gotten it cannot be used in court. The defence will also argue that although his client has a past record, this fact is inadmissible.
If the high court judge feels that the evidence is weak and not enough to support the prosecutions claims then he has the right to throw the case out.
