Laurell K. Hamilton Quotes

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence.

I'm absolutely, l00 percent, not guilty.

If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

The onus of proof lies on the plaintiff.

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

An indictment is not a conviction.

If it doen't make sense, you should find for the defense.

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof

…the burden of proof rests always upon the advocates of change.

Indictments don't mean anything; men are entitled to be innocent until they are proved guilty.

[The defendant] has an absolute, unqualified right to compel the State to investigate its own case, find its own witnesses, prove its own facts, and convince the jury through its own resources. Throughout the process, the defendant has a fundamental right to remain silent, in effect challenging the State at every point to “Prove it!”

If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.

Let law enforcement determine guilt or innocence.

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

Our entire legal system bets a great deal on the proposition that this ‘adversary’ system is the least imperfect way to develop all the truth: the corollary is that we must look on partisanship not as an evil but as a part of the system's working.

Laymen ought not to be accused save by dependable and lawful accusers and witnesses.

The innocent man is always eager to give his explanation and does so at the first opportunity, and it is always to his interest so to do. But the guilty is now enabled by the law to remain mute, to learn the evidence against him, to concoct his defense pending trial, and to come into court fully acquainted with the case against him, while the district attorney only knows that the defendant has pronounced the two words "not guilty.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

By removing the obligation to scrutinize evidence, we allow ourselves to operate on pre-existing prejudices, reducing our courts of law to mere kangaroo courts. A world without due process would contain far more injustice than we face today. Although some victims fight uphill evidential battles, we cannot make a better world by ditching due process. Rather, we must find ways of accounting for the difficult burdens of proof faced by some people, while also preserving the legitimacy of the law. This approach may be less gratifying than simply Tweeting #believethevictim, but it aims to preserve civil liberties that we all – regardless of identity – should cherish.

The central pillar of our justice system is due process. You have got to be charged with a crime. Then you can challenge those charges in a court of law with a trial.

Rule of law is based on probable cause.

In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress 'suspects.'

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.