context: It is also well-recognized that, in almost any claim involving motive, a defendant's state of mind is typically established by circumstantial evidence because of the difficulty in obtaining direct evidence of motive. In criminal cases, for example, where the burden of proof is considerably higher than in a Bivens suit, this court and others have recognized that "[i]ntent may, and generally must, be proved circumstantially; normally, the natural probable consequences of an act may satisfactorily evidence the state of mind accompanying it." Nor does this court distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence when evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal ease.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.parenthetical: "No distinction is made between direct and circumstantial evidence in evaluating the sufficiency of evidence supporting a guilty verdict."
citation_a.sentence: United States v. Lam Kwong-Wah, 924 F.2d 298, 303 (D.C.Cir.1991) (“No distinction is made between direct and circumstantial evidence in evaluating the sufficiency of evidence supporting a guilty verdict.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 287, 121 L.Ed.2d 213 (1992); see also United States v. Stone, 748 F.2d 361, 362 (6th Cir.1984) (ruling that “circumstantial evidence alone can sustain a guilty verdict and that to do so, circumstantial evidence need not remove every reasonable hypothesis except guilt”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 748 F.2d 361, 362
citation_b.parenthetical: ruling that "circumstantial evidence alone can sustain a guilty verdict and that to do so, circumstantial evidence need not remove every reasonable hypothesis except guilt"
citation_b.sentence: United States v. Lam Kwong-Wah, 924 F.2d 298, 303 (D.C.Cir.1991) (“No distinction is made between direct and circumstantial evidence in evaluating the sufficiency of evidence supporting a guilty verdict.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 287, 121 L.Ed.2d 213 (1992); see also United States v. Stone, 748 F.2d 361, 362 (6th Cir.1984) (ruling that “circumstantial evidence alone can sustain a guilty verdict and that to do so, circumstantial evidence need not remove every reasonable hypothesis except guilt”).