Amanda Knox Quotes

The question in the Simpson case has never been whether he is guilty or not guilty but, given the facts and circumstances of this case, whether it is possible for him to be innocent. And the answer to that question has always been an unequivocal no.

If you're a prosecutor, and you believe the defendant is guilty, you only talk about ultimate truth, but not intermediate truth. If you're the defense attorney, you care deeply about intermediate truth, but you tend to neglect ultimate truth.

Mr. Justice, there are unanswerable questions in this case.

Contrary to common belief, the presumption of innocence applies only inside a courtroom. It has no applicability elsewhere, although the media do not seem to be aware of this.

Our constitutionally-based criminal justice system places a high value on protecting the innocent. Among its central tenets is the idea that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to convict someone without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Everyone is innocent unless proven otherwise.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence.

In the ordinary affairs of life we do not require nor expect demonstrative evidence, because it is inconsistent with the nature of matters of fact, and to insist on its production would be unreasonable and absurd.

I don't think the law exists to arrive at the truth. If it did, we wouldn't have exclusionary rules, we wouldn't have presumptions of innocence, we wouldn't have proof beyond reasonable doubt. There's an enormous difference between the role of truth in law and the role of truth in science. In law, truth is one among many goals.

I think the prosecution had all the evidence in front of them to have won the case.

All decisions in the criminal justice system must be determined by the physical and scientific evidence, and the credible testimony corroborated by that evidence, not in response to public outcry.

Criminal cases require strategy, and prosecutors should attempt to prove only what can be proved.

When a person is found less guilty than he is suspected, he is concluded more innocent than he really is.

I think most defense attorneys know, to some extent, their clients are guilty.

Some may remember, if you have good memories, that there used to be a concept in Anglo-American law called a presumption of innocence, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Now that's so deep in history that there's no point even bringing it up, but it did once exist.

A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.

Circumstantial evidence … that wonderful fabric which is built out of straws collected at every point of the compass, and which is yet strong enough to hang a man.

The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy

There is a presumption of innocence in American law that means that you cannot consider making someone guilty until all the evidence is in the the procedures are completed.

Jury instructions are so numerous and complex, it's a wonder jurors ever wade through them. And so it should come as no surprise that they can sometimes get stuck along the way. The instruction on circumstantial evidence is confusing even to lawyers. And reasonable doubt? That's the hardest, most elusive one of all.

I truly believe in O.J.'s innocence, and unless they find him guilty, I will continue to support him.

There is no such thing as absolute proof. There is only evidence.

I believe that everybody is entitled to a presumption of innocence.

In our justice system, everyone who is charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. It should go without saying that people who are not charged with a crime also are presumed innocent.

The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail.