Circumstantial evidence must support a reasonable inference rather than mere speculation

Evidence

In a criminal case, although certain portions of evidence may be introduced to present permissible inferences, the sum total must amount to a reasonable inference of the ultimate fact of defendant’s guilt. Thus, the ultimate issue in a civil case based on circumstantial evidence is the ability to draw a reasonable inference, and not a speculation, of liability. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 222

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 222
• XREF: connects to: Permissible jury inferences require a logical probability connecting basic facts to ultimate facts — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 217; Directed verdicts require courts to decide if facts permit reasonable inferences — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 221; Circumstantial evidence cannot support legal liability when resting entirely on speculation — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 237 (+6 more)

Library Connections

• Circumstantial evidence cannot support legal liability when resting entirely on speculation #corroborates (0.95) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 237