They don't have any evidence!!
One of the statements defense lawyers hear often is "how can they convict me if they don't have any evidence" Usually its followed by all they have is someone who says I committed the crime.
I have never yet understood where this idea comes from. Some defendants continue to believe that unless there is a video of the crime, there is no evidence; I even had a client one time who did not believe a video of a drug transaction was evidence, because you couldn't clearly see who was on the tape.
The answer to the question of course is that witness testimony is evidence. Whether it be the victim of a robbery, or a sexual assault, their testimony and identification is evidence. In fact, it is what is referred to as direct evidence. You can argue about whether the identification is accurate, or whether the allegation is false, but you can't argue its not evidence.
It is even harder to explain circumstantial evidence. At least for the last 10 years, there is no difference in Texas between direct and circumstantial evidence. The issue for the jury is whether they believe the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, you might have a burglary where property taken from a residence is pawned a few hours after the burglary. One logical conclusion is that only the burglar would have the property that quickly. Of course, there could be other explanations, and it would be up to the jury to decide whether they thought that was sufficient.
In these days of CSI, there is also a belief that you can't get a conviction without physical evidence. Especially in sexual assault cases, many defendants refuse to believe they can be convicted without physical evidence. The lack of physical evidence can be significant, but not always. If the victim promptly reports the assault, and immediately goes to the hospital, you would expect there to be some evidence. If the assault isn't reported for several days, you wouldn't expect to find any physical evidence. Defendants aren't alone on this. Prosecutors have been complaining for several years about the "CSI effect" - jurors who refuse to convict without physical evidence.
The bottom line is you have to use at least a little common sense. There's always evidence - the question is whether its enough to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
