9

Some time back, I had read a specific phrase used to refer to situations where some "evidence" can be interpreted either way.

For example: Person A dies in a hospital and a syringe is found close to the body.

  • Argument 1: Person A was killed by a doctor/nurse.

  • Argument 2: Person A committed suicide via injection/drug overdose.

Other arguments can be made, but the gist here is: due to the ambiguity of this "evidence" it can be argued for the innocence of Person A just as well as it can be argued for Person A having harmed their self.

Q: Is there such a phrase in jurisprudential or legal thought?
If I remember correctly, Avicenna, when discussing logic, had used a specific phrase for such instances. But hoping there will be equivalent phrases in English speaking word too?

David Siegel
  • 113,558
  • 10
  • 204
  • 404
info_seekeR
  • 193
  • 5
  • 2
    Circumstantial? – Greendrake Feb 15 '22 at 08:25
  • @Greendrake thank you for attempting to answer! Unfortunately circumstantial appears to indicate a tilt towards one side although not conclusively. What I had heard was for instances when interpretation can really sway it to either side. – info_seekeR Feb 15 '22 at 08:30
  • 1
    The weapon by itself might not prove anything, but we live in times where fingerprints and how certain medicines effect the dead body are well known! the prints on the syringe or lack thereof (gloves) are for example an indicator together with where the syringe was found and so on. It can get complicated but you need to always see evidence in the circumstances. – Trish Feb 15 '22 at 10:55
  • 2
    "Circumstantial" is indeed incorrect, but not by much. It is popularly understood to be a rough synonym of "weak," it instead refers to evidence that implies the truth of a fact, rather than evidence that states conclusively that a fact is true. Circumstantial evidence will therefore typically be ambiguous, but the ambiguity itself is not what the word denotes. – bdb484 Feb 15 '22 at 12:37
  • 2
    “Cuts both ways” – George White Feb 15 '22 at 19:49
  • It'd be irrelevant evidence if it isn't relevant to discerning the truth. – Nat Feb 16 '22 at 14:15
  • 2
    Are you not describing "equivocal" evidence? Doesn't that literally mean what you wanted? – Robbie Goodwin Feb 16 '22 at 21:41
  • https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/ambiguous – MonkeyZeus Feb 17 '22 at 15:33

6 Answers6

17

Is there such a phrase in jurisprudential or legal thought?

In those instances it is common to say that the evidence is inconclusive. Accordingly, it is unavailing because that evidence does not prove the party's allegation.

Iñaki Viggers
  • 1
  • 4
  • 68
  • 95
11

While not a "one word answer", the phrase that I most frequently see for that concept is "susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation".

The concept, by the way, is widely used in the law. There are many kinds of rulings which can only be made if the evidence is not susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. When it is, the facts must be determined by the finder of fact (the jury in a jury trial, and the judge in a bench trial) in an evidentiary trial on the merits of the issue to be decided.

This standard is pertinent in pre-trial dispositive motions (motions to dismiss, motions for judgment on the pleadings, motions for summary judgment). It is also applied in on appeal to review of a ruling by a court on a motion to either enter judgment, or to dismiss a claim or charge, prior to a jury verdict, or contrary to a jury verdict (either on liability or on damages in a motion for vacateur), because no reasonable finder of fact could reach a contrary conclusion.

The example in the question, however, seems to refer to the related concept of "reasonable doubt".

I am not a big fan of Avicenna's (a.k.a. Ibn Sina's) logic, but one relevant term his system is sometimes translated from the 11th century Arabic as "indeterminate", and that may be term you are looking for.

ohwilleke
  • 211,353
  • 14
  • 403
  • 716
6

It's not a technical legal term, but most lawyers would refer to this using the same word you did: as "ambiguous" evidence.

bdb484
  • 58,968
  • 3
  • 129
  • 184
6

The word the question immediately made me think of is "equivocal". For which the first result in a dictionary search was "open to more than one interpretation;".

SoronelHaetir
  • 221
  • 2
  • 2
1

...situations where some "evidence" can be interpreted either way...

Opinion?

Interpretation of (some forms of) evidence is often the realm of the Expert Witness who has a duty:

to help the court to achieve the overriding objective by giving opinion which is objective and unbiased, in relation to matters within their expertise. This is a duty that is owed to the court and overrides any obligation to the party from whom the expert is receiving instructions.

  • 1
    -1 In some cases an expert may be asked to help interpret ambiguous evidence, but not all opinion evidence deals with ambiguous evidence, nor is all ambiguous evidence suitable for expert interpretation, so opinion evidence is NOT the same as ambiguous evidence, and "opinion" is not a correct answer to this question. – David Siegel Feb 16 '22 at 00:49
-5

If a fact is consistent with both conclusions, then it is circumstantial. If a fact does not favor one conclusion over another, then it is non-probative. (But in reality, a syringe is more consistent with suicide than murder, as a murderer would remain alive afterwards and therefore be capable of removing the syringe.) Non-probative evidence is somewhat of an oxymoron; if it's non-probative, it isn't really evidence. Circumstantial is different from non-probative; something can be consistent with both conclusions, but more likely given one, and thus be probative despite being circumstantial.

Acccumulation
  • 6,095
  • 10
  • 28
  • 2
    -1 "Circumstantial" is a term used for evidence of the conditions or Circumstances that may lead to a conclusion, as opposed to eyewitness evidence. Circumstantial evidence may clearly favor one side, or be ambiguous, so it is NOT the term wanted here – David Siegel Feb 16 '22 at 00:22
  • 2
    Yes I read it at least three times. It is simply incorrect, that is not what "circumstantial" means in a legal context. If you think I am wrong, please cite a source in your answer. – David Siegel Feb 16 '22 at 00:35
  • @DavidSiegel If you think that I am wrong, then say what I have said that is wrong. – Acccumulation Feb 16 '22 at 00:38
  • 1
    For example, a bloody knife found near a victim is circumstantial evidence, while an account of a witness who saw a stabbing is not. Pretty much all physical evidence is circumstantial evidence – David Siegel Feb 16 '22 at 00:38
  • 4
    What is wrong is that you have used the word "Circumstantial" in an incorrect sense. That word simply does not mean what your answer says it means. – David Siegel Feb 16 '22 at 00:40
  • @DavidSiegel I am running out of patience with you. What have I said that is wrong and how is it wrong? If you continue to refuse to answer, I will request moderator intervention. – Acccumulation Feb 16 '22 at 00:42
  • 2
    I have answered, twice. What you said that was incorrect was to use the word "circumstantial" for a meaning that it does not, in a legal context have. At least that is my understanding of the legal meaning of "circumstantial". See https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=191 where it says "evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact" – David Siegel Feb 16 '22 at 00:59
  • 2
    If you still think moderator intervention is wanted after my latest comment, and after following the link in it, please do flag this comment for intervention. By the way, no rule requires a user to answer a comment nor to explain a down vote, although I try to always explain my DVs. – David Siegel Feb 16 '22 at 01:41
  • 1
    The same source says: "Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial." see also https://www.britannica.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial and https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/legal-defenses/circumstantial-evidence/ – David Siegel Feb 16 '22 at 02:03
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Acccumulation Feb 16 '22 at 02:49
  • Lety is not. I find the chat interface uncomfortable, and I do not use it, ever. – David Siegel Feb 16 '22 at 02:55
  • I see someone has upvoted your comment. Perhaps that person can explain what in my answer is wrong? – Acccumulation Feb 16 '22 at 02:59
  • 3
    What is wrong is that your answer claims that "circumstantial" has a meaning that it does not, in fact, have. I have now cited 4 sources on this. – David Siegel Feb 16 '22 at 03:11
  • Feel free. I have answered your question several times now, in the best way that I know of. And as I mentioned before, there is no obligation on any user here to answer any comment, for any reason. I have tried to giver a responsive answer to your question. You may disagree with the answer I gave, but I did provide one. You said "If a fact is consistent with both conclusions, then it is circumstantial. ". That is not correct, please follow the links to defs in my comments above.. – David Siegel Feb 16 '22 at 03:28
  • @DavidSiegel So, that's ten comments that it took for you to state what I said that is wrong. Now, what's wrong with it? You presented ""evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact" as if it shows me to be wrong, but there is nothing inconsistent between "circumstantial" being "not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact" and also "consistent with two hypotheses". – Acccumulation Feb 16 '22 at 03:48
  • You present the example of "a bloody knife found near a victim is circumstantial evidence". The reason it's circumstantial evidence is because it's possible for a bloody knife to be found near the victim without the defendant being guilty. If it were impossible for a bloody knife to be found near the victim without the defendant being guilty, then that would be direct evidence. – Acccumulation Feb 16 '22 at 03:48
  • 1
    Some circumstantial evidence is consistent with multiple hypotheses. Some is not. It does not become direct evidence even if it has only one reasonable;e interpretation. Nor does eye-witness evidence that is consistent with two different interpretations cease to be direct evidence. – David Siegel Feb 16 '22 at 03:55
  • @DavidSiegel "Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that does not, on its face, prove a fact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that the fact exists. Circumstantial evidence requires drawing additional reasonable inferences in order to support the claim." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/circumstantial_evidence If X is impossible given a particular piece of evidence, then that piece of evidence does in disprove X. – Acccumulation Feb 16 '22 at 04:00
  • And eye-witness evidence that is consistent with both X and not X is, in fact, circumstantial evidence. A witness testifying to a fact does not magically make that fact direct evidence. For instance, if a witness testifies that the knife was found next to the victim, that is direct evidence that the knife was found next to the victim, but it's circumstantial evidence that the defendant is guilty. – Acccumulation Feb 16 '22 at 04:00
  • 1
    See https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/77882/what-does-circumstantial-evidence-mean-in-criminal-procedure/77883#77883 – David Siegel Feb 16 '22 at 15:23
  • @DavidSiegel Just to remind you, this whole comment chain started with you saying "Circumstantial evidence may clearly favor one side, or be ambiguous, so it is NOT the term wanted here". The only way this makes sense is if I had said that circumstantial evidence does not favor one side. My answer specifically said that circumstantial evidence can favor one side. I tried to get you to clarify what you were claiming my answer was saying, and you responded with blatantly uncooperative responses. It is quite clear that you have no interest in a civil discussion. – Acccumulation Feb 16 '22 at 16:07
  • 2
    You said in your ans that "circumstantial" was the proper term, or a good term, for evidence that "is consistent with both conclusions", and that any such evidence is "circumstantial". To the best of my understanding that is not correct. Others have downvoted this ans as well, I suppose on similar grounds. I have posted a new Q&A about the meaning of this term, and linked it here. I have attempted to be civil and cooperate in explaining my views and answering your questions as best I understood them. If I had not been willing to discuss I would not have responded. I have no further point now. – David Siegel Feb 16 '22 at 16:18