Evidence in Texas Criminal Cases

If a person is charge with a crime they are “presumed innocent” and can only be convicted when the Government proves the crime “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Even though a person has been accused, arrested, jailed, or charged with a crime a jury is not suppose to assume a person has done something wrong.

One jury member may need more evidence than another jury member to be convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt.” However, a lawyer cannot tell jury members that they should require more evidence to be convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt” based on how serious a case is.

The United State’s Supreme Court has decided that it violates your “due process” rights for a jury to require the accused to prove anything. The State has to prove every part of the crime “beyond a reasonable doubt” whether the evidence is circumstantial or direct.

What is the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence?

Direct evidence can prove something by itself and does not need other evidence. Circumstantial evidence is proof of one thing (or several things) that you may use to conclude that other evidence exists.So, the government does not have to have certain evidence in any case. Even without any direct evidence the government can prove a case with overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Just because you have a good defense does not mean you will be found “not guilty” by a jury. A criminal defense lawyer has to present evidence, questions witnesses, and argue in a way that makes jurors understand that the government has not met their border to convict you.