Skip to main content

How to a Defendant uses Circumstantial Evidence and Direct Evidence in a Court Hearing or Trial Court on a Retail Theft case?

Columbus, OH |

Assumed we in the court room, what's the first word or thing to do to start to prove evidence in a case...especially Circumstantial Evidence?

I will need a big screen like a something that can make paper appear as a TV screen to enable everyone to see my documents, how do I ask the court that I will need that to accommodate my ability to prove my evidence, is the motion form to request that?

+ Read More

Attorney answers 2


Okay, hang on. You want this website to tell you how to be a lawyer? Let me answer in your chronology.

According to the Rules of Evidence, circumstantial evidence is to be given the same probity as direct evidence. (This is not TV). There are certainly nuances to understand but how can anyone give you knowledge and experience that has been obtained through at least 3 years of law school, studying for the bar exam and, most importantly, trying cases in court?

Next, the court is under no obligation to provide technology for you. Some may be wired up and ready to go but most are not. You can certainly ask, but you may need to bring all of your own stuff and set it up yourself. (This is what law firms do. We provide a service and assets which allow us to defend you professionally and efficiently).

Let me put it another way. If you have a cracked and abscessed very painful tooth (and no dental insurance) would you go down to your workshop and yank it out yourself with no anesthesia, pain medication or antibiotics? Of course not! You would find the money somewhere and go to a dentist to have it done right.

Another example; if your car breaks down because of a blown transmission or cracked cylinder head and you absolutely needed your car for transportation would you fix it yourself? (Maybe, if you had all the knowledge, tools and parts).

See where I am going? If the case is truly important to you, hire an attorney. If you can not afford one, the court will ask you why and provide you a "public defender" if you qualify. And one more thing. If you represent yourself, the court WILL NOT give you any break because you are not a lawyer. You will be required to follow all the rules of procedure, evidence, and protocol like any other lawyer. If you do not, your case will be extremely jeopardized.

In summary, to paraphrase a common but true saying, "a person who defends himself in court, has a fool for a client".

This post is not meant to: 1) contain my signature; 2) contain legal advice; 3) create an attorney/client relationship; or 4) guarantee confidentiality.


You should really hire a lawyer or have a public defender appointed.

It is always difficult to grasp the full extent of any legal issue from a brief introduction to a limited set of facts. If you are experiencing a situation that needs legal attention it is always best to set up a consultation with an attorney and go over the facts in greater detail. If you decide to enter into a professional relationship with an attorney hours of research will go into analyzing your case, so please do not expect that anything posted here should be relied upon without substantial further review.



I didn't want to hear that kind of BS. I ask a question, so you either answer ACCORDINGLY or NO ANSWER AT ALL! I do not want to hire a lawyer, I want justice, so I want a lawyer to answer my questions here!

Ronald Joseph Koehler

Ronald Joseph Koehler


The question about the equipment needed should be addressed to the court's bailiff. Some courts have all the equipment (called an ELMO), and all you have to do is ask. Other courts require you file a motion. Search the internet for your court's local rules. Some courts have no such equipment. Whether or not the document will be admissible in evidence depends on what it is. Some evidence is self-authenticating. Other evidence must be authenticated by testimony of a witness. You have to call the right witness and ask the right questions. Some evidence otherwise inadmissible can be used solely to cross-examine an opposing witness. We can't tell you how to do that without knowing what document you want to introduce into evidence. We all took a course in law school called Evidence and another course called Trial Techniques. Those courses took over a hundred hours. It is impossible to give you all the information you need in an answer here.