Insufficient Evidence

Example 1

A county prosecutor indicts a homeless man, Gene Rogers, in the murder of a local bartender. However, there isn’t any evidence to support the conviction except for one eyewitness who testifies that Rogers was the killer. However, the eyewitness has poor eyesight and wasn’t wearing their glasses during the murder. The judge decides to dismiss the case against Rogers on the grounds of insufficient evidence, as there isn’t enough evidence to support a conviction.

Example 2

The CEO of a tech start-up sues a rival on the grounds that the rival allegedly stole the CEO’s intellectual property. However, during discovery, the CEO can’t provide evidence of the alleged theft, so the judge dismisses the case due to insufficient evidence.

Case Examples

• Definition: Insufficient evidence is considered a term of art. See Mannes v. Gillespie, 967 F.2d 1310, 1315 (9th Cir. 1992). This means that unless the court clearly states otherwise, “the trial judge intended the phrase to carry its accepted meaning that the evidence presented at the trial was not legally sufficient to support a conviction for the crime charged, rather than that the judge ‘entertained personal doubts about the verdict.’” Id. (internal citations omitted). In Mannes, the state appealed a lower trial court judge's ruling that there was insufficient evidence to convict Mannes of murder. Id. The appeals court agreed with the lower court judge, stating that the judge did not overstep his bounds by deciding questions of fact. Id. Instead, the lower court judge determined that there was insufficient evidence to establish implied malice as an essential element of a murder conviction, which is a question of law. Id. Therefore, the Appeals Court upheld the lower court's decision. Id.
• Habeas corpus standard: In contrast, in Mackenzie v. Portuondo, 208 F. Supp. 2d 302, 323 (E.D.N.Y. 2002), Mackenzie, an inmate, filed a petition for habeas corpus, claiming that there was insufficient evidence to uphold his conviction on robbery and kidnapping charges. Id. In order to find that there was insufficient evidence of a crime for the purposes of habeas corpus, “the Court must find that, when viewing the evidence most favorably to the prosecution, no rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Mackenzie v. Portuondo, 208 F. Supp. 2d 302, 323 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (internal citations omitted). The court, in its opinion, also noted that inmates have a very high standard to clear to get relief. The court found that Mackenzie had not proven that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction or that his constitutional rights were violated. Id.