There was circumstantial evidence that I had commited the crime I was questioned for. The door had been kicked in, and the bootprint on the door was of the same type and size as what I wore. A 'witness' placed me in the area at the time of the burglary. Further, I had had an argument with that person just two days before.
Do you think I should have been tried for it the B/E and the burglary?
I'm not privie to the evidence that law enforcement had on you. --Nor am I interested.
What you had was more of a coincidental type of association to whatever happened. With what little they had quickly was evident there was nothing there. Further your alibi was very good.
Article: Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact. Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.