Would you convict a person of murder without any physical evidence?

Question

Could U Convict A Man Of Murder Without Any Physical Evidence And Only Eyewitness Testimony?

Answer 1

You have 2 different questions here. One, no physical evidence AND only a witness. If you have a witness to a murder, you probably have very good physical evidence as well. Now, if it is a hearsay witness, then the case will go nowhere.

People are convicted fairly often on overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Without all the particulars of any given case, I can only say it is possible.

I can't think of any murder where there would be NO physical evidence. Just finding it is the hard part.

Answer 2

Nope. No court in any recent history would. Its all up to the jurors though.  

Answer 3

Physical evidence such as no body?

Dump a body in really strong acid or alkaline solution and there will be no trace of a body.

Even with physical evidence, I would personally require the prosecution to make a case beyond the doubts of a reasonable person.

With no physical evidence, that bar is higher.  But if the prosecution made its case, yes I would.

Answer 4

Eyewitness testimony is way down on my list of reliable evidence. Especially if the defendant was not well known to the witness.

Gotta have more than that.

Answer 5

Your question is too generic.

Without knowing the facts of the case it would irresponsible to render any judgment.

However the testimony of reliable witnesses can be overwhelming in conjunction with circumstantial evidence.

Answer 6

It has been done more often than we would wish. Most notably small towns with a history of persecuting minorities will declare a murder without proof. This was a famous feature of the Jim Crow south. But it has happened in larger cities as well.

However I believe that the Supreme court, not surprisingly based on the notion of Habeus Corpus, has declared it completely unacceptable.

Answer 7

well...of course not but that's not how things work after all look at scott peterson..they had nothing on him and yet he sill got convicted simply because it LOOKED like he did it (which for the record I believe he did it)

Answer 8

Have you never heard of "circumstantial evidence"?  Go look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstant...

It is absolutely possible to convict without a body.  Happens all the time.  And just because there's no body, DOES NOT mean than an innocent person has been convicted.

This eyewitness: he watched the murder happen?  He observed the act itself, maybe even knows where the body was disposed of?  That's pretty damning evidence.  If this witness saw the murder happen and knows how it happened, the forensics units will eventually be able to collect physical evidence.  If the witness saw where the body was disposed of, the police can search for it and will probably eventually find it.  

An eyewitness to the murder itself is going to carry a lot of weight with a jury.  The defense is going to have to prove that everything the witness says is a lie.  Not just "insinuate" that the witness is lying, or try to make the witness seem like a dishonest person all the time - they're going to have to PROVE that the witness was somewhere else, has a reason to lie, has a grudge against the defendant.

If the prosecution can come up with a theory that makes the defendant look guilty by using circumstantial evidence, the defense can sit back and hope the jury thinks the theory stinks.  Or the defense can poke holes in the theory and show the jury why the circumstantial evidence can point to some other person as the murderer.  Or the defense can present their own evidence to prove that the defendant didn't do it.  At the end of the case, it comes down to which side has the most logic behind their theory.

Convict without a body or other evidence:  yep.  Go read the wikipedia link and find out why circumstantial evidence is allowed at trial.