Legal Evidence Matrix
Systematically evaluate autopsy findings, grand jury witness depositions, and physical traces across competing legal hypotheses.
Evidence Ledger & Consistency Cross-Check
| Evidence Item / Record | Category | Weight | Hypothesis 1 | Hypothesis 2 | Action |
|---|
Record New Investigative Finding
Grand Jury Evidence Standards & Analysis Framework
How investigative bodies, district attorneys, and legal analysts distinguish accident from foul play when reviewing forensic death investigations.
1. Probable Cause Standard
Unlike trial juries which require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, grand juries determine whether there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed and that the accused committed it. In death investigations with no named suspect, the panel reviews whether physical evidence indicates an unlawful homicide.
2. Forensic Pathology vs Speculation
In cases like Nolan Wells, autopsy findings—such as alveolar hyper-expansion, presence of pleural fluid, lack of petechial hemorrhages or strangulation marks, and absent subdural hematomas—form objective biological proof consistent with drowning. Unsubstantiated theories require corroborating trauma to reach legal thresholds.
3. Multi-Hypothesis Consistency (ACH)
Based on Richards Heuer's Analysis of Competing Hypotheses, this matrix weights evidence not to prove a favored outcome, but to see which hypotheses are refuted. In legal fact-finding, an explanation is discarded when uncontroverted physical data directly contradicts it.