I have a lot of clients, and those who are considering retaining my services as a criminal defense attorney tell me, "Well, the prosecutors don't have any evidence against me, so I don't really understand why I'm arrested, and I don't understand how they're going to prove their case."

Understanding the evidence available to prosecutors is crucial in navigating a criminal case in the Los Angeles County court system. This knowledge empowers individuals, giving them a sense of control over their situation.

Of course, if the prosecutors have a videotape of you or your loved one committing the crime, that would certainly be direct evidence to prove their case. However, in real life, they often don't have a video showing exactly what happened, so they must rely on other means to prove their case.

One form of evidence is witnesses. If an alleged victim or any other witness says, Yeah, this person did this to me. They hit me in the head. They stabbed me with a knife, and there's no videotape of it, but that doesn't mean that they don't have any evidence.

The witnesses themselves are actually evidence. So, when the case begins, there is an opening statement by both sides, and then the prosecution, as they bear the burden, will call the first witness. Any testimony given by that witness is considered evidence.

If a jury believes it and the evidence satisfies the elements of a crime, then that person will be convicted by the jury. Often, people need to realize that prosecutors do have evidence, and sometimes, they present it, even if it is not strong.

 When the witness used by the prosecution is biased or lacks credibility, a skilled criminal defense attorney steps in. They cross-examine the witness, attack their credibility, and present the client's side of the story, instilling confidence in the defense strategy.

Proving A Case By Circumstantial Evidence

Another form of evidence that prosecutors can use to prove a case is if they can demonstrate that it has a specific meaning, so people understand what it means when they're trying to use evidence. I'll give an example that I often use in many of the cases I handle. 

Let's say a mother bakes a cherry pie, and a little boy is in the kitchen watching her make it. She puts the pie on the counter to cool, and she heads off to run some more errands in the house.

When she comes back five minutes later, there's a huge bite taken out of the pie, and she looks at the little boy and says, ' Did you take a bite out of that pie? ' And the little boy says, Absolutely, I did not. So, I suppose in that case, the little boy can argue that there is no evidence.

You don't have the video showing me taking a bite of the pie, but given the circumstances, there can be an argument that the little boy took a bite of that pie. I'm going to give you an example of what the mother sees.

No. .1, the little boy is the only one in the house. There's nobody else in the house, and there's a bite taken out of the pie. So, yes, of course, that's evidence. It could be the little boy. But let's go further. The little boy's hands are covered in cherry juice. 

Cherry juice is smashed all over the little boy's mouth, crumbs are on his shirt and all over his face, and crumbs lead from the pie back to where he is seated at the kitchen table. That is circumstantial evidence that the little boy took a bite of the pie.

In such circumstances, you can see that in a criminal case, many times, things happen—crimes are committed, and circumstantial evidence leads to the argument that the person charged committed the crime. There are many different types of evidence.

Direct Versus Indirect Evidence

Direct evidence would be a video of the person committing the crime. The person admits that they committed the crime. An eyewitness sees them as they're committing the crime. This is all direct evidence to prove a case.

However, indirect evidence is akin to circumstantial evidence, where one must use deductive logic to infer that the person committed the crime. Prosecutors are specifically trained to present this type of evidence and then make the necessary arguments.

But, of course, you have to factor in a criminal defense attorney who is going to come in and say, ' Wait a minute. ' This is not proof that somebody committed a crime. They're going to attack the credibility of the witnesses.

Even when the prosecution believes that a chain of circumstantial evidence leads to the conclusion that the person committed the crime, it's not necessarily true. A strong defense can challenge this, offering hope for a positive outcome.

Of course, you have an opportunity to present your version of events to tell what happened from your perspective. In a criminal trial, the defense can present an affirmative defense if it chooses to do so. An affirmative defense is a legal defense in which the defendant introduces evidence, which, if found to be credible, will negate criminal liability or civil liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts. We can rest on the state of the evidence if that's the right strategic move, or we can present the defendant. 

We can call other witnesses and present additional evidence that does not support the case. The prosecutors have not met their burden, and therefore, the person should be found not guilty.

So, the bottom line is when it comes to evidence, the way that I do it – I've been doing this for twenty-five years. I've handled over 200 jury trials – I've got you come in, and we sit down. We review the case, and then I can show you how the prosecutors will put the case together.

You'll tell me how you believe the case should go and what evidence you believe is available on your side, and then I can tell you how that will be presented. Then, we will have a better understanding of how the case will be resolved—whether it should proceed to a jury trial or be settled through negotiation. Settling a case through negotiation involves reaching an agreement with the prosecution, often resulting in a plea bargain or a reduced sentence.

Suppose it is going to trial before a jury. In that case, I can show you how we would present our evidence, how they would present their evidence, and, most importantly, where the issues would be for the jury as far as trying to figure out whether someone is innocent or guilty of a crime and whether the prosecutors have presented enough evidence to meet all the elements of a particular crime or crimes.