New York Law (NYLE) Practice Exam

If Jake only has Paul's testimony against him as evidence for a crime he did not commit, what is likely to happen during his trial?

1. He is likely to be convicted based on circumstantial evidence

2. He is likely to be acquitted due to lack of evidence

3. He will be prosecuted as an accomplice

4. He may be convicted due to prior history

The correct answer is: He is likely to be acquitted due to lack of evidence

In a criminal trial, the prosecution carries the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If Jake’s only evidence against him is Paul’s testimony and there is no corroborating evidence or material proof linking Jake to the crime, it creates a significant challenge for the prosecution. The lack of additional evidence can cast doubt on the reliability and credibility of Paul’s testimony, especially if Paul’s motives for testifying could be questioned. If the defense effectively highlights weaknesses in Paul’s account and emphasizes that the testimony alone does not meet the high standard of proof required for a conviction, it is very likely that the jury or judge would find them insufficient to convict. This situation is often crucial in affirming the presumption of innocence that is foundational to the legal system, leading to a potential acquittal due to lack of evidence supporting the prosecution's case. This highlights the importance of substantial, credible evidence in supporting a conviction versus mere allegations or witness testimony without corroboration.