'Circumstantial evidence comes from a variety of sources and bears on an event indirectly,but when all of it is taken together, leads to a particular conclusion. To pass muster, it mustreasonably lead to the conclusion sought to be proven while also reasonably excluding anyother conclusion. Suppose a prosecutor wants to prove it was raining at some point. Onewitness testifies that he entered a windowless building on a hot sunny day and remainedthere several hours. When he left, the ground was wet, there were mud puddles, and the airwas cooler. Another witness testifies that the building's groundskeepers were off that dayand no substitutes were hired. There is no reasonable conclusion other than it was raining,and this circumstantial evidence will be allowed to prove that it was.
In New York, a judge is not required to instruct the jury on circumstantial evidence whenthere also direct evidence to support an allegation. A judge must instruct a jury oncircumstantial evidence, however, if a case is mostly built on it. In such an instance, thejudge would explain that circumstantial evidence must itself be based upon direct evidence. Testimony stating, "When I exited the building, I saw that the ground was wet," isacceptable, while testimony stating, "When I exited the building someone told me that itrained," is not. The jury must also decide whether there is enough circumstantial evidenceto find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In making that decision, the jurymust determine that all of the circumstantial evidence leads to the conclusion of guilt, notinnocence; that the circumstantial evidence logically leads to the conclusion of guilt withoutguesswork; and that the circumstantial evidence excludes, to a moral certainty, anypossibility other than the conclusion that the individual is guilty. Prepared by Heidi Dennis, an associate in the Plattsburgh office of the law firm of O'Connell& Aronowitz."
Now - before minion comes along and picks out of it what he wants to see - let me tell you what I get out of it.
Their example of rain is an OK one - let's just assume that the fact that it rained outside is a bit of circumstantial evidence in some case that pionts toward the guilt of a defendant. So the pros. attorny must try to prove that it was raining - he calls the person who said it was wet outside, etc. - and the one who says the groundskeepers were not there (Presumably watering) - so - this evidence passes the muster - that it was resonably raining - and can be used in total consideration of guilt. If it did not pass the muster - say we did not hear that the groundskeepers were off - well then we would have two reasonable options - rain - or groundskeepers watering. We could not use the rain as circumstantial evidence of guilt then - to combine with other circumstantial evidence to reach the overall verdict - even though we need that peice to fall into line for all the evidence to add up.