Legal Question in Appeals and Writs in California

Re: Convicted with no evidence

Many people mistakenly believe that only physical objects can be deemed evidence. Most evidence, however, is in the form of testimony. A defendant can be convicted without any physical evidence if the testimony offered at trial persuades the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

Many people also believe that clear fingerprint evidence should always remain after someone handles an object like a gun, but that is simply not the case. Fingerprints usually do not stick to the metalic portions of guns, and are very difficult to recover from the wooden portions as well. The lack of fingerprints on a gun is thus of limited help to a defendant, and even a partial match can be strong evidence for the prosecution.

It sounds like there was good reason to doubt the testimony of the witness you describe, but whether he should be believed or not is the jury's call. If your cousin's lawyer had an opportunity to show the jury why the witness should not be believed but the jury disagreed, then there probably isn't much an appeal can accomplish.

The part about the jury feeling rushed may be a viable issue, but I don't know if it will work on appeal. Appeals are limited to arguments about what happened on the record, but comments from the jury usually don't come to light until later. If defense counsel had declarations from some jurors and made them part of a motion for new trial then this argument can be made on appeal, but if they weren't the argument would have to be made by a habeas corpus petition instead.