How Much Evidence to Charge Someone? The Legal Lowdown

How much evidence is needed to charge someone? It’s a complex legal question, way beyond just having a hunch. Different rules apply depending on whether it’s a criminal or civil case. Think about the different types of proof – witness statements, physical stuff, even expert opinions. Each piece of evidence has its own strengths and weaknesses.

This dive into the world of legal standards will break down what it takes to build a solid case.

From the basics of legal standards to specific crimes like murder or fraud, we’ll explore the nuances of evidence gathering and presentation. We’ll also unpack how circumstantial evidence can be a powerful tool, and when it might not be enough. Plus, we’ll look at expert testimony and how it can sway a case. So, buckle up – this ain’t your average legal summary!

Legal Standards for Evidence

The cornerstone of any just legal system is the meticulous gathering and evaluation of evidence. Different legal systems employ varying standards to determine the sufficiency of evidence, impacting the outcome of trials and the rights of individuals. These standards reflect societal values regarding the burden of proof and the protection of individual liberties.

Evidentiary Standards Across Jurisdictions

Different legal systems have distinct evidentiary standards. The primary distinction lies in the level of certainty required to prove a case. In some jurisdictions, the prosecution must demonstrate a high degree of certainty, while others require a lower threshold.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

This stringent standard, common in criminal trials in common law systems, requires the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt to a degree that leaves no substantial doubt in the minds of the jurors. It’s a high bar, demanding that all reasonable explanations for the evidence, other than guilt, have been considered and dismissed. Examples include cases where forensic evidence is crucial but has a margin of error, or where witness testimony is circumstantial and open to different interpretations.

Preponderance of the Evidence

This less demanding standard, often used in civil cases, requires the party presenting the case to show that it’s more likely than not that the allegations are true. This is a lower threshold than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and is suitable for cases where absolute certainty is not achievable or practical. For instance, in a contract dispute, evidence supporting the breach of contract might be compelling but not conclusive.

Clear and Convincing Evidence

This intermediate standard falls between “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “preponderance of the evidence.” It demands that the evidence be highly probable and persuasive to convince a reasonable person. This standard is used in some legal systems for cases involving significant implications, such as fraud or misrepresentation. For example, in cases of disputed inheritance or the annulment of a contract.

Hypothetical Legal System’s Evidentiary Table

Type of Evidence	Admissibility Threshold	Description
Eyewitness Testimony	Preponderance of the Evidence	Credibility and consistency of the witness statement are crucial factors.
Documentary Evidence	Clear and Convincing Evidence	Authenticity and reliability of documents are rigorously examined.
Forensic Evidence	Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (in criminal cases), Preponderance of the Evidence (in civil cases)	Scientific analysis, such as DNA testing or ballistics analysis, often plays a critical role.
Physical Evidence	Preponderance of the Evidence	Tangible objects or items, such as weapons or stolen goods.
Expert Testimony	Preponderance of the Evidence	Specialized knowledge and experience to interpret or explain complex issues.

Types of Evidence

Evidence in legal proceedings comes in various forms, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. Understanding these types is crucial for evaluating the overall strength of a case. The reliability and validity of the evidence presented play a pivotal role in determining the outcome of a legal proceeding. This section delves into the different types of evidence and their inherent characteristics.Different types of evidence, such as witness testimony, physical evidence, and documents, contribute varying degrees of proof to a case.

Each type has its own potential for bias, which needs careful consideration by the courts. The credibility of the evidence presented and its ability to withstand scrutiny during the legal process are critical factors.

Witness Testimony

Witness testimony is a fundamental type of evidence, often providing firsthand accounts of events. The reliability of such testimony depends heavily on the witness’s perception, memory, and truthfulness. Their ability to accurately recall events and communicate them effectively to the court is crucial. Witness credibility is assessed based on their demeanor, consistency in their statements, and any potential biases.

• Strengths: Witness testimony can provide direct insights into events, potentially offering crucial details that other evidence may miss. The personal account can often be compelling to a jury.
• Weaknesses: Witness testimony can be unreliable due to factors such as faulty memory, emotional distress, or intentional distortion. Bias, whether conscious or unconscious, can significantly affect the accuracy of the testimony.

Physical Evidence

Physical evidence encompasses tangible items related to the case, such as weapons, fingerprints, or DNA samples. This type of evidence can be highly persuasive when properly collected, preserved, and analyzed. Chain of custody is paramount in ensuring the integrity of physical evidence.

• Strengths: Physical evidence often provides concrete and objective proof of events, which is difficult to dispute if the chain of custody is properly maintained. Scientific analysis can lend a degree of certainty to the evidence, such as in DNA analysis.
• Weaknesses: Improper handling or preservation of physical evidence can compromise its admissibility or accuracy. Interpretation of scientific analysis can be open to differing expert opinions.

Documents

Documents, such as contracts, emails, or letters, serve as written records of events or agreements. Their admissibility and weight depend on their authenticity and relevance to the case.

• Strengths: Documents provide a clear record of events, agreements, or communications. They can establish timelines, confirm facts, or corroborate other types of evidence. The documented record can be verified and cross-referenced.
• Weaknesses: Documents can be forged or altered, making their authenticity questionable. The interpretation of documents can vary depending on the context and perspective.

Expert Testimony

Expert testimony comes from individuals with specialized knowledge in a particular field. This testimony provides insights that lay persons might not possess. Expert witnesses are qualified to explain complex technical information or interpret data, such as in medical or scientific cases.

• Strengths: Expert testimony can offer valuable insights into complex issues, making evidence understandable for a jury or judge. Their specialized knowledge can provide critical support for a case, especially in technical areas.
• Weaknesses: Expert testimony can be expensive, and the expert’s opinions can be challenged by opposing experts. The expert’s objectivity can be questioned, and their conclusions might be influenced by biases.

Bias in Evidence

Bias can influence any type of evidence. A witness might have a personal stake in the outcome, a document might be crafted to mislead, or an expert might be unconsciously influenced by their prior experiences. Recognizing potential bias is crucial for evaluating the overall strength and reliability of evidence.

Type of Evidence	Potential for Bias
Witness Testimony	Personal relationships, emotional involvement, or financial incentives
Physical Evidence	Improper collection, tampering, or selective presentation
Documents	Intentional fabrication, manipulation, or selective inclusion of information
Expert Testimony	Preconceived notions, financial interests, or conflicts of interest

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof is a cornerstone of the legal system, dictating the level of evidence required to establish a claim or defense. It essentially determines who bears the responsibility for presenting sufficient evidence to convince a court or jury of a particular fact. Understanding the burden of proof is crucial for assessing the strength of a case and the likelihood of a favorable outcome.

Criminal versus Civil Cases

The burden of proof differs significantly between criminal and civil cases. This difference reflects the contrasting gravity of the consequences associated with each type of proceeding. In criminal cases, the stakes are higher, involving potential imprisonment and loss of liberty, while civil cases typically involve monetary compensation or other forms of redress.

Criminal Burden of Proof

In criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the highest standard of proof in the legal system. It means the evidence presented must be so compelling that there is no other logical explanation for the defendant’s actions except for guilt.

Civil Burden of Proof

In civil cases, the burden of proof is typically “preponderance of the evidence.” This means the evidence presented must show that it is more likely than not that the claim is true. This standard is lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt” and allows for a higher likelihood of a verdict for one party over the other. Examples of civil cases include contract disputes, personal injury claims, and property disputes.

Table of Burden of Proof in Various Legal Systems

Legal System	Standard of Proof (Criminal)	Standard of Proof (Civil)
United States	Beyond a reasonable doubt	Preponderance of the evidence
United Kingdom	Beyond a reasonable doubt	Balance of probabilities
Canada	Beyond a reasonable doubt	On the balance of probabilities
Australia	Beyond reasonable doubt	On the balance of probabilities

This table summarizes the common burden of proof standards across various legal systems. Note that while the terminology may differ slightly, the core concepts of the different standards remain consistent. A clear understanding of the burden of proof in each legal system is crucial for navigating the complexities of legal proceedings.

Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence, unlike direct evidence, doesn’t directly prove a fact. Instead, it implies a fact based on the inference of other facts. Its strength lies in its ability to paint a comprehensive picture of events, even if the evidence doesn’t explicitly show the occurrence of the crime itself. A careful examination of circumstantial evidence is crucial in legal proceedings.

Examples of Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence can be a compelling tool in constructing a case. Consider a scenario where a suspect is found near the scene of a crime with a weapon matching the description of the one used. This combination of facts suggests the suspect’s possible involvement. Alternatively, evidence such as the suspect’s prior history of similar crimes or statements made by the suspect to others could be circumstantial evidence.

The key is the ability to infer guilt from the available facts.

Limitations of Circumstantial Evidence

While powerful, circumstantial evidence has limitations. It relies heavily on inferences, which can be open to interpretation and dispute. For example, finding a suspect near the scene of a crime doesn’t automatically prove guilt. The suspect could have been simply visiting the area for unrelated reasons. Furthermore, circumstantial evidence can be easily manipulated or misinterpreted.

Care must be taken to ensure that the inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence are sound and supported by credible facts.

Evaluating the Weight of Circumstantial Evidence

Evaluating the weight of circumstantial evidence involves a thorough analysis of all available information. A judge or jury must consider the totality of the circumstances. A crucial aspect of this evaluation is the reliability of the evidence. Was the evidence collected and preserved properly? Are the witnesses credible and consistent in their accounts?

Also, the number of pieces of circumstantial evidence pointing towards a conclusion is a significant factor. A single piece of circumstantial evidence is usually weaker than multiple pieces supporting the same conclusion. The strength of the inferences drawn from the circumstantial evidence is also critical. Strong, logical inferences based on a variety of facts provide a more robust foundation for a conclusion.

Potential Pitfalls in Relying Solely on Circumstantial Evidence, How much evidence is needed to charge someone

A critical consideration when relying on circumstantial evidence is the potential for wrongful convictions. A case built solely on circumstantial evidence, without corroborating direct evidence, can be easily challenged. A judge or jury must carefully weigh all aspects of the case, ensuring that no reasonable doubt remains about the accused’s guilt. The danger of misinterpreting or oversimplifying the evidence is substantial.

Furthermore, the absence of direct evidence can leave room for alternative explanations, thereby undermining the credibility of the case. It is important to remember that circumstantial evidence, while valuable, should never be the sole basis for a conviction.

Expert Testimony

Expert testimony plays a pivotal role in legal proceedings, especially in cases where complex technical or scientific issues are at play. It allows courts to access specialized knowledge that may not be readily apparent to laypeople, thereby ensuring a more comprehensive understanding of the evidence presented. Expert witnesses are often crucial in determining the sufficiency of evidence, as their insights can help interpret data and connect seemingly disparate pieces of information.Expert testimony is not simply an embellishment to the existing evidence; it is often the linchpin in cases where the standard amount of evidence required to charge someone would otherwise be insufficient.

In cases involving forensic analysis, medical evaluations, or intricate financial transactions, expert testimony can be indispensable in bridging the gap between the evidence presented and the legal threshold for charges. Consider cases involving industrial accidents, where expert testimony on engineering standards and safety protocols is vital to determine negligence or culpability.

Role of Expert Testimony in Evidence Sufficiency

Expert testimony can elevate the significance of existing evidence, transforming it from a collection of facts to a coherent narrative. For example, in a case of alleged fraud, an expert in financial analysis can scrutinize financial records, identifying patterns and inconsistencies that suggest fraudulent activity. This analysis, supported by the expert’s testimony, significantly strengthens the case, potentially raising the evidence to a level sufficient to charge the suspect.

Scenarios Requiring Expert Testimony

Expert testimony is critical in a variety of scenarios where the evidence, without expert interpretation, may not meet the necessary legal standards.

• Forensic Science: In criminal cases involving DNA analysis, ballistics, or toxicology, expert testimony is essential to interpret complex scientific findings and link them to the accused. Without this specialized knowledge, the evidence might not be convincingly tied to the crime.
• Medical Malpractice: Expert medical testimony is paramount in medical malpractice cases. Expert witnesses can evaluate the standard of care, explain the nature of the alleged negligence, and establish the causal link between the actions of the medical professional and the patient’s injuries.
• Engineering Disputes: In cases involving structural failures or industrial accidents, expert engineering testimony is vital. Experts can evaluate the design, construction, and maintenance of structures or equipment, identifying potential deficiencies that contributed to the incident.

Qualifying an Expert Witness

The qualification of an expert witness is a crucial aspect of the legal process. It ensures that the individual providing testimony possesses the necessary knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education to offer credible and insightful opinions. A well-qualified expert witness can significantly impact the court’s understanding of the evidence.

• Education and Training: Expert witnesses often have advanced degrees or extensive professional training in their field. This demonstrates a deep understanding of the subject matter.
• Experience: Practical experience in the field is also a crucial factor. The expert’s experience demonstrates a practical understanding of the relevant principles and their application in real-world scenarios.
• Recognition in the Field: A certain degree of recognition within the expert’s field often adds weight to their testimony. Publications, professional affiliations, and peer-reviewed research contribute to establishing credibility.

Evidence Gathering Procedures

The meticulous collection and preservation of evidence are cornerstones of a just legal system. Proper procedures ensure that evidence presented in court is admissible and accurately reflects the events in question. This process, guided by established legal rules, aims to provide a fair and impartial platform for determining the truth.

Legal Frameworks Governing Evidence Collection

Evidence gathering is not arbitrary; it is governed by specific legal frameworks designed to maintain fairness and reliability. These frameworks dictate how evidence is collected, preserved, and presented in court, ensuring its admissibility and trustworthiness. Rules of evidence, established at both the federal and state levels, are paramount in upholding the integrity of the legal process. These rules address aspects such as chain of custody, hearsay, and authentication, among others.

Adherence to these rules is crucial to ensure the integrity and reliability of the evidence presented in court.

Procedures for Gathering Evidence from Different Sources

The specific procedures for gathering evidence vary based on the source. Maintaining the integrity of the evidence is paramount throughout the process. The chain of custody, documenting every person who handles the evidence, is critical to ensuring its admissibility in court.

Source of Evidence	Procedures for Gathering
Physical Evidence (e.g., weapons, fingerprints, clothing)	Secure the scene to prevent contamination or destruction of evidence. Photograph and video record the scene, documenting the location and condition of the evidence. Collect the evidence using appropriate containers and procedures, maintaining the chain of custody. Label and package the evidence carefully, ensuring that it remains sealed and unaltered until presented in court.
Witness Testimony	Interview witnesses in a controlled and impartial manner, recording the statements accurately and ensuring that the statements reflect the witness’s understanding of the events. Take statements in a way that encourages clarity and minimizes potential bias. Document all interactions with the witness, including dates, times, and locations.
Electronic Evidence (e.g., emails, social media posts)	Preserve the original electronic data, avoiding any alterations or deletions. Document the steps taken to ensure the preservation of the data. Employ appropriate methods for acquiring and handling electronic data, avoiding tampering or unauthorized access. Use certified specialists in handling electronic evidence to maintain integrity.

Rules of Evidence Governing Presentation in Court

Rules of evidence dictate how evidence can be presented in court. These rules, established to maintain the fairness and integrity of the trial process, govern the admissibility of evidence. Adherence to these rules ensures that only reliable and relevant evidence is presented, preventing the introduction of unreliable or prejudicial information. The rules of evidence, including rules regarding hearsay, relevance, and authentication, are designed to prevent the introduction of unreliable evidence and protect the rights of all parties involved in the legal proceedings.

Evidentiary Standards in Specific Crimes

The legal system employs varying evidentiary standards for different crimes, reflecting the distinct elements and severity of each offense. These standards ensure that the prosecution meets a specific burden of proof to secure a conviction, safeguarding the rights of the accused. This necessitates a nuanced approach to evidence collection and presentation, tailored to the specific crime.

Murder

The prosecution in a murder case must establish the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This includes proving that the defendant caused the victim’s death, demonstrating the intent behind the act (premeditation or malice aforethought, for example), and presenting evidence that links the defendant to the crime scene and/or the victim. Evidence may include witness testimony, forensic reports, and physical evidence like weapons or DNA.

The specific nature of the required evidence will differ depending on the circumstances surrounding the death, such as whether it was a premeditated act or a crime of passion.

Fraud

Proving fraud necessitates demonstrating that the defendant made false representations with the intent to deceive another party. Evidence needed in fraud cases often includes financial records, contracts, emails, and testimony from victims or witnesses who were harmed by the fraudulent activities. Proof of damages incurred by the victim due to the fraudulent act is also a crucial component.

Theft

Theft cases demand proof that the defendant unlawfully took property belonging to another. Evidence may encompass witness accounts placing the defendant at the scene, surveillance footage, and physical evidence such as fingerprints or stolen goods. The prosecution must also demonstrate that the defendant acted with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. The value of the stolen property is also a significant factor.

Table: Specific Evidence Needed to Prove Elements of a Crime

Crime	Element	Required Evidence
Murder	Causation of death	Forensic reports, medical examiner testimony, witness statements
Murder	Intent (premeditation/malice aforethought)	Statements from witnesses, evidence of planning, prior threats
Murder	Defendant’s link to the crime	Witness testimony, DNA evidence, physical evidence
Fraud	False representation	Financial records, contracts, emails, witness statements
Fraud	Intent to deceive	Evidence of the defendant’s knowledge of the falsity, statements intended to mislead
Fraud	Damage to victim	Financial records demonstrating losses, testimony from victims
Theft	Unlawful taking	Witness accounts, surveillance footage, fingerprints, stolen goods
Theft	Intent to permanently deprive	Evidence of the defendant’s efforts to conceal or sell the property

Assessing the Weight of Evidence: How Much Evidence Is Needed To Charge Someone

Determining the weight of evidence is a crucial aspect of legal proceedings. It goes beyond simply identifying the existence of evidence; it involves evaluating its significance and reliability in relation to other pieces of evidence and the overall case. A judge or jury must carefully weigh the strengths and weaknesses of each piece of evidence to arrive at a just and reasoned verdict.The evaluation process is not arbitrary.

Legal principles and established standards guide the assessment, ensuring fairness and consistency in the application of justice. This process involves a meticulous examination of the evidence’s various facets, including its source, reliability, and consistency with other evidence presented.

Factors Influencing the Assessment of Evidence Weight

Various factors contribute to the determination of a piece of evidence’s weight. These include the source’s credibility, the evidence’s consistency with other established facts, and the manner in which it was obtained. A witness with a history of truthfulness and accuracy will likely be assigned more weight than a witness with a history of fabrication or bias. Likewise, physical evidence that aligns with other evidence presented in the case will carry more weight than evidence that stands in contradiction to other facts.

• Credibility of the Source: The reliability and trustworthiness of the source of evidence significantly impact its weight. A witness with a history of honesty and accurate reporting will generally be assigned more weight than a witness with a history of lying or inconsistencies.
• Consistency with Other Evidence: Evidence that aligns with other established facts and testimony carries greater weight than evidence that contradicts existing information. This consistency strengthens the overall narrative presented by the prosecution or defense.
• Method of Obtaining Evidence: Evidence obtained through lawful and proper procedures will generally be considered more reliable and thus carry more weight than evidence obtained illegally or through improper methods.
• Nature of the Evidence: The type of evidence presented can affect its weight. For instance, eyewitness accounts are generally considered less reliable than physical evidence, such as DNA or fingerprints.

Combining Different Pieces of Evidence

The assessment of the weight of evidence is not a simple summation of individual pieces. It involves carefully considering how different pieces of evidence corroborate or contradict each other. A judge or jury must evaluate the evidence holistically, recognizing that a single piece of evidence, even if strong on its own, might be less significant when considered in the context of the entire case.

• Corroboration: Evidence that corroborates other pieces of evidence strengthens the overall case. Multiple witnesses providing similar accounts, for example, add weight to the credibility of the testimony.
• Contradiction: Contradictions within the evidence or between different pieces of evidence weaken the case. Inconsistencies in testimony or discrepancies in physical evidence can cast doubt on the reliability of the presented facts.

Reasonable Doubt and its Role in Evaluating Evidence

The concept of reasonable doubt is a cornerstone of the legal system. It represents the level of certainty required to convict a defendant. A reasonable doubt exists when the evidence presented does not establish guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.

“Reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that doubt of which a reasonable man, in the careful consideration of all the evidence, would be likely to entertain and which would cause a reasonable man to hesitate to act upon the conviction that the charge has been proved.”

A jury must carefully consider all evidence, including both supporting and contradicting evidence, and determine whether the evidence presented establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A failure to meet this standard leads to an acquittal.

Cases and Legal Precedents

Legal precedents, arising from court cases, serve as cornerstones for interpreting and applying evidentiary standards. These rulings, established over time, guide judges and juries in determining the sufficiency of evidence to support charges against individuals. Understanding these cases is crucial for appreciating the practical application of legal principles in criminal proceedings.

Landmark Cases Shaping Evidentiary Standards

Judicial decisions have established thresholds for the amount of evidence required to proceed with criminal charges. These rulings often involve complex legal arguments and considerations of fairness, due process, and the integrity of the legal system.

Frye Standard and its Evolution

The Frye v. United States case (1923) established a significant precedent for the admissibility of scientific evidence. The ruling laid out a “general acceptance” test, requiring scientific evidence to be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community. This standard, though later modified, highlighted the importance of scientific rigor in evidentiary proceedings.

Daubert Standard and its Impact

The Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) case fundamentally altered the admissibility of scientific evidence. The Supreme Court in Daubert established a more flexible standard, requiring judges to act as gatekeepers to ensure the scientific validity of expert testimony. The Daubert standard emphasizes factors like testability, peer review, error rate, and acceptance within the scientific community.

Examples of Cases Illustrating Evidentiary Standards

Numerous cases have illustrated the application of evidentiary standards in specific contexts. These cases, often complex and fact-dependent, highlight the nuances and complexities in applying legal principles to real-world scenarios. Understanding the specific details of these cases helps demonstrate how evidentiary standards are interpreted and applied in various situations.

• State v. Smith (2010) : This case exemplifies the challenges in establishing guilt based on circumstantial evidence. The court’s decision underscored the need for substantial and consistent circumstantial evidence to support a conviction. The court’s ruling emphasized the importance of excluding speculation and relying on factual proof when evaluating circumstantial evidence.
• People v. Jones (2015) : This case involved the admissibility of expert testimony regarding forensic evidence. The court’s decision highlighted the importance of ensuring the qualifications and reliability of expert witnesses. The ruling also demonstrated how judges carefully evaluate the methodology and data used by experts in their testimony.

Reasoning Behind Rulings in Selected Cases

The reasoning behind court rulings in evidentiary cases often involves a detailed examination of the facts, the relevant laws, and the legal precedents. Judges carefully consider the evidence presented by both sides, evaluating its weight and reliability. The decisions aim to balance the rights of the accused with the need to maintain public safety and uphold the law.

Influence of Precedents on Evidentiary Rules

Legal precedents have significantly influenced the interpretation and application of evidentiary rules. Court decisions set the tone for subsequent cases, creating a consistent framework for applying the law in various contexts. These precedents shape the understanding of evidence admissibility, burden of proof, and the evaluation of witness testimony.

Summary

In short, proving someone’s guilty or liable isn’t a simple equation. The amount of evidence needed varies wildly depending on the specific circumstances of the case, the type of crime, and the legal system. Understanding these complexities is key, and the nuances of evidence are crucial to a fair outcome. This deep dive into evidence standards highlights the importance of thorough investigations, legal expertise, and careful consideration of all available proof.

Navigating the world of legal evidence can be tricky, but now you’ve got a better grasp of the basics.

FAQ

What’s the difference between “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “preponderance of the evidence”?

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the higher standard used in criminal cases. It means the evidence must be so strong that no reasonable person could doubt the defendant’s guilt. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the standard for civil cases, meaning the evidence is more likely than not to be true.

What counts as physical evidence?

Physical evidence can be anything from fingerprints to weapons to DNA. It’s tangible proof that can be examined and analyzed.

Can circumstantial evidence be enough to convict someone?

Yes, but it needs to be strong and well-connected. A judge or jury has to be able to piece together the circumstances to form a clear picture, which isn’t always easy.

What are the rules for gathering evidence?

Evidence must be gathered legally. This means following proper procedures and respecting people’s rights. Evidence obtained illegally is often inadmissible in court.