Marcia Clark Quotes

Juries are not qualified to judge questions of law, but they are very capable of judging questions of fact.

The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.

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

Circumstantial evidence is 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.

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.

Juries must, of necessity, be governed, in reaching many results through inferences from other facts, by certain laws of nature and human reason. They are often obliged to infer one thing from another, and this, whether that other be a fact direct or circumstantial.

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

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

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

After the verdict was read in the Simpson case, as the jury was leaving, one of them, I was later told, said, 'We think he probably did it. We just didn't think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.'

As this case has progressed, the evidence that the prosecution has claimed exists against me has been proven less and less and less. And all that has happened is that they've filled these holes with speculation.

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

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

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.

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.

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

The defendant wants to hide the truth because he's generally guilty. The defense attorney's job is to make sure the jury does not arrive at that truth.

I believe in my heart Simpson is guilty.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

I thought it was possible that O.J. could have done something. It crossed my mind. I was thinking about the events of everything and going, Why did I hear that? I was going, No, it can't be, and just all that stuff was adding up.

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

The grand jury's job is not to weigh the evidence from both sides; it is only to decide whether there is enough evidence on one side to bring a person to trial.

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 trial deals with only a limited amount of information, considering only the evidence which is available and also admissible and which relates directly to the charges on the indictment.