Legal/jurisprudential term to refer to any evidence that can be interpreted either way

Question

Some time back, I had read a specific phrase used to refer to situations where some "evidence" can be interpreted either way.

For example: Person A dies in a hospital and a syringe is found close to the body.

• Argument 1: Person A was killed by a doctor/nurse.

• Argument 2: Person A committed suicide via injection/drug overdose.

Other arguments can be made, but the gist here is: due to the ambiguity of this "evidence" it can be argued for the innocence of Person A just as well as it can be argued for Person A having harmed their self.

Q: Is there such a phrase in jurisprudential or legal thought?
If I remember correctly, Avicenna, when discussing logic, had used a specific phrase for such instances. But hoping there will be equivalent phrases in English speaking word too?

Answer 1

Is there such a phrase in jurisprudential or legal thought?

In those instances it is common to say that the evidence is inconclusive. Accordingly, it is unavailing because that evidence does not prove the party's allegation.

Answer 2

While not a "one word answer", the phrase that I most frequently see for that concept is "susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation".

The concept, by the way, is widely used in the law. There are many kinds of rulings which can only be made if the evidence is not susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. When it is, the facts must be determined by the finder of fact (the jury in a jury trial, and the judge in a bench trial) in an evidentiary trial on the merits of the issue to be decided.

This standard is pertinent in pre-trial dispositive motions (motions to dismiss, motions for judgment on the pleadings, motions for summary judgment). It is also applied in on appeal to review of a ruling by a court on a motion to either enter judgment, or to dismiss a claim or charge, prior to a jury verdict, or contrary to a jury verdict (either on liability or on damages in a motion for vacateur), because no reasonable finder of fact could reach a contrary conclusion.

The example in the question, however, seems to refer to the related concept of "reasonable doubt".

I am not a big fan of Avicenna's (a.k.a. Ibn Sina's) logic, but one relevant term his system is sometimes translated from the 11th century Arabic as "indeterminate", and that may be term you are looking for.

Answer 3

It's not a technical legal term, but most lawyers would refer to this using the same word you did: as "ambiguous" evidence.

Answer 4

The word the question immediately made me think of is "equivocal". For which the first result in a dictionary search was "open to more than one interpretation;".

Answer 5

...situations where some "evidence" can be interpreted either way...

england-and-wales

Opinion?

Interpretation of (some forms of) evidence is often the realm of the Expert Witness who has a duty:

to help the court to achieve the overriding objective by giving opinion which is objective and unbiased, in relation to matters within their expertise. This is a duty that is owed to the court and overrides any obligation to the party from whom the expert is receiving instructions.

Answer 6

If a fact is consistent with both conclusions, then it is circumstantial. If a fact does not favor one conclusion over another, then it is non-probative. (But in reality, a syringe is more consistent with suicide than murder, as a murderer would remain alive afterwards and therefore be capable of removing the syringe.) Non-probative evidence is somewhat of an oxymoron; if it's non-probative, it isn't really evidence. Circumstantial is different from non-probative; something can be consistent with both conclusions, but more likely given one, and thus be probative despite being circumstantial.