United States v. Clarence Henderson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• providing circumstantial evidence is frequently more than sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury must decide whether to draw the inference between the evidence presented and the fact asserted
• “Circumstantial evidence can be and frequently is more than sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” (citing United States v. Hinds, 662 F.2d 362, 367 (5th Cir. 1981))
• “[C]ircumstantial evidence is not testimony to the specific fact being asserted, but testimony to other facts and circumstances from which the jury may infer that the fact being asserted does or does not exist.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).