So someone has accused you of wrong doing, but has not presented any evidence, what now? How can the State charge you with a crime when it is just one person’s word against yours? Don’t they need evidence? Isn’t what they say about me ‘hearsay’?
I get these questions a lot from clients and prospective clients. These questions demonstrate a misunderstanding of what ‘evidence’ is.
First I want to clear up the confusion about ‘hearsay’. Is a person’s accusation against you hearsay? It is only hearsay if 1) they are saying what someone else said and witnessed, or 2) the state tries to use the person’s out of court statement against you without calling that person into court. If the person says they witnessed the crime, and they come into court and testify that they witnessed the crime, then it is no longer a hearsay statement.
Second I want to talk about ‘evidence’ and ‘live testimony’. Evidence is anything the state presents that makes it more or less likely that a fact is true. Live testimony is evidence. It is possible to be convicted by live testimony alone. The state can bring in a witness, have that witness testify in open court under oath, and present that witness’s testimony, and nothing more. That may be a weak case for the state, but in most cases, arguing to the judge for a dismissal of the case because the state did not present ‘evidence’ is going to be a loser argument.
Most people do not understand how the criminal justice system works. When you are charged with a crime you are charged by the prosecuting attorney. The judge does not charge you, and the judge does not decide what the ‘facts’ are in a criminal case. The jury decides the ‘facts’ and decides whether to acquit (i.e. find him not guilty) a defendant, or find him guilty. A judge decides evidentiary issues, and would most certainly decide that a person’s live testimony of a crime that the person witnessed, is relevant testimony for a jury to hear.
You will have to argue your case to the jury, you will have to argue that the State did not present enough evidence to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. You cannot argue this to the judge (unless of course you choose a bench trial where the judge is the trier of fact, in that case the judge will still be able to hear the live testimony as evidence and decide whether he or she believes the witness).
I say all of this to help you understand that the State can charge you with a crime based on what one person says. Do not think that you will be able to just walk into the courtroom and tell the judge that this is just one person’s word against yours, and that the State can’t charge you. In most cases they can, and they will.
You need to start preparing your defense. The fact that the State has only presented one person’s testimony against you, and no other evidence, is a proper argument to make to the jury. It goes to the weight of the evidence. It certainly isn’t a slam dunk case for the State when the only evidence the State presents is one person’s word. You certainly have a good chance of arguing a winning case to the jury, especially if you can call the witness’s credibility into question. Just make sure you understand that that’s what you are going to have to do. You cannot just walk into court and ‘tell the judge’. If you think that’s what you can do, then you will go into court unprepared to defend your case.