Tennessee Criminal Lawyer Blog

In continuing the tradition that was started yesterday on our blog of discussing suspects eating the evidence, we bring you the story of a forty year-old Ohio woman who attempted to rob a local bank with a note but ended up eating the note instead. She apparently got to the front of the teller line and handed the teller the note. Then, before the teller could actually read the note, the lady noticed that a uniformed FBI agent (off-duty at the time) was standing in line behind her. This caused her to panic, and she grabbed the note from the teller and tried to flee the bank. On her way out, she attempted to eat the note but was unable to swallow it and it was found outside. The FBI agent made the arrest without any problems.

One common misconception concerning evidence such as the note used to rob the bank is that people seem to believe that if the police cannot find the note then the person cannot be convicted of trying to rob the bank. That simply is not true. There are two types of evidence that can be used in criminal cases: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence would be something like the note itself that plainly proves that the lady tried to rob the bank without the jury having to make any inferences. Circumstantial evidence is a little trickier. The circumstantial evidence would be evidence that would allow the jury to draw the conclusion that the lady tried to rob the bank without actually having direct proof. It would go something like this: (1) the lady handed the teller a note; (2) the lady noticed a police officer in line behind her; (3) the lady grabbed the note and ran out of the bank; (4) the lady tried to eat the note; (5) therefore, the note must have been evidence of a crime, which, given the circumstances, (6) must have been attempted bank robbery.

While direct evidence proves a fact more convincingly, circumstantial evidence is just as admissible in a court of law and jurors are often given specific instructions that state that circumstantial evidence can be the basis for a conviction. Often, a key factor in the strength of circumstantial evidence in a case is how well the defense attorney is able to emphasize the lack of direct evidence and downplay the inferences that can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence. This is a technique that is learned with courtroom experience and serves as another way in which experienced criminal defense attorneys can assist their clients.