Circumstantial evidence is something that a lot of lawyers use in their court cases in front of a jury or judge. This kind of evidence is evidence of an indirect nature. A simple example of this in a non-legal setting is deer tracks in the snow. While the deer is not present while looking at this part of the snow, it is evident that the deer was here because of the tracks in the snow. Thus this example showing that circumstantial evidence is really evidence of fact or circumstances from which the existence or nonexistence of a fact that may be interfered with.
During a trial, the accused defendant can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone. But the biggest thing that has to be done during a trial to find someone guilty just through circumstantial evidence is that the theme of guilt must have been flowing through all of the evidence presented and must be consistent. If you think that something went wrong with a case in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas involving circumstantial evidence call a Bucks County criminal lawyer for evidentiary help and trial defense.
A sound example for circumstantial evidence not being able to convict someone has been shown in three different but similar cases. In the cases of Commonwealth v. Woong Knee New, and Commonwealth v. Crews their verdict was overturned because of the circumstantial evidence. These cases were based solely upon evidence that placed the defendants at the scene of the crime, but with no evidence that the defendants committed the crime the court could not rightfully convict the defendants. Circumstantial evidence is a great tool to use in court, but it is not enough to rightfully convict a potentially innocent person. If you want to learn more about the cases please visit their cites: Commonwealth v. Woong Knee New 354 Pa. 188 A.2d 450 (1946), and Commonwealth v. Crews 436 Pa. 346 260 A.2d 771 (1970).