Bernard Goldberg Quotes

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.

People in general have no notion of the sort and amount of evidence often needed to prove the simplest matter of fact.

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

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Any perjury case is a tough case. You just don't go on 'he said-she said.' You have to find corroborating evidence.

In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether is it possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true.

By competent evidence, is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence, is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Circumstantial evidence is occasionally very convincing, as when you find a trout in the milk, to quote Thoreau's example.

If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

A criminal should be exonerated if it is proven to the court that the blood of the victim was permitted.

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.

Many witnesses to the shooting of Michael Brown made statements inconsistent with other statements they made and also conflicted with the physical evidence. Some were completely refuted by the physical evidence.

The rules of evidence in the main are based on experience, logic, and common sense, less hampered by history than some parts of the substantive law.

While you're finding evidence of innocence, you also find evidence that points to other people.

Decisions on a matter as serious as charging an individual with a crime cannot be decided on anything less than complete examination of all available evidence. Anything less is not justice.

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.

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

Scientists search for truth. Philosophers search for morality. A criminal trial searches for only one result: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 reasonable doubt is nothing more than a doubt for which reasons can be given. The fact that 1 or 2 men out of 12 differ from the others does not establish that their doubts are reasonable.

I am not guilty, I am innocent.

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.