a woman, vicki, vanished one day with no trace. fifteen years later, vickis sister - in - law debbie (they…

a woman, vicki, vanished one day with no trace. fifteen years later, vickis sister - in - law debbie (they were originally married to two brothers) was convicted by a jury trial of killing vicki. vickis body had never been found, and there was no physical evidence to inform the case. debbie appeals the conviction on the grounds of there being insufficient evidence to prove she was guilty.\nyou would grant the appeal and overturn the guilty verdict because there was no body or physical evidence, only circumstantial evidence.\nyou would reject the appeal and uphold the guilty verdict because the nature of the circumstantial evidence made it sufficient in this case.

a woman, vicki, vanished one day with no trace. fifteen years later, vickis sister - in - law debbie (they were originally married to two brothers) was convicted by a jury trial of killing vicki. vickis body had never been found, and there was no physical evidence to inform the case. debbie appeals the conviction on the grounds of there being insufficient evidence to prove she was guilty.\nyou would grant the appeal and overturn the guilty verdict because there was no body or physical evidence, only circumstantial evidence.\nyou would reject the appeal and uphold the guilty verdict because the nature of the circumstantial evidence made it sufficient in this case.

Answer

Answer:

A. You would grant the appeal and overturn the guilty verdict because there was no body or physical evidence, only circumstantial evidence.

Brief Explanations:

In criminal law, a conviction should be based on strong evidence. Without a body or physical evidence, and relying solely on circumstantial evidence, the case may lack the necessary proof - beyond - a - reasonable - doubt standard. So, the appeal should be granted.