It's Their Word Against Mine—How Does a Criminal Defense Lawyer Investigate an Accusation?
One of the most common things I hear from someone accused of a crime is:
“There's no proof. It's just their word against mine.”
Sometimes that is true in the sense that there is no video of the incident, no independent eyewitness, no DNA evidence, and no photograph showing exactly what happened. But there is an important distinction between:
“There is no evidence other than this person's accusation,”
and
“The State cannot prosecute me unless the accusation is independently corroborated.”
Those are not the same thing. Arizona law generally does not require an alleged victim's testimony to be corroborated by physical evidence before a criminal case can result in a conviction. Arizona courts have long recognized that, in appropriate circumstances, a conviction can rest on the alleged victim's testimony alone.
That means a defense lawyer cannot look at a case and say:
“No video? No injuries? No independent witness? Case dismissed.”
Instead, when I defend a criminal case based largely on one person's accusation, I want to know something much more important:
What evidence should exist if this accusation happened the way the State says it did?
That question can lead us to surveillance video, text messages, phone records, location information, photographs, 911 calls, body-camera footage, medical records, witnesses, timelines, and other evidence that may support—or contradict—the accusation. In a “word against word” case, the investigation often matters more, not less.
Can Someone Really Be Convicted Based Only on Another Person's Testimony?
Yes. This is important to understand from the beginning. Arizona courts have repeatedly rejected the idea that an alleged victim's testimony must always be backed by independent physical evidence. A conviction may be based on the uncorroborated testimony of the alleged victim unless the account is physically impossible or so incredible that no reasonable person could believe it.
That does not mean a jury is required to believe an accusation. It means the absence of corroborating evidence does not automatically make the evidence legally insufficient. Credibility becomes a central issue. So when a client tells me: “They can't prove it because there were only two of us there,” my response is not that the case is hopeless. But I also do not tell them that the case will simply disappear. The job of the defense is to investigate the accusation.
What Does “Corroboration” Mean in a Criminal Case?
Corroboration is evidence that tends to support another piece of evidence or another person's account. Suppose someone says:“He assaulted me in the parking lot at 10:15 p.m.” Potential corroborating evidence might include:
surveillance video showing both people in the parking lot;
a 911 call made immediately afterward;
photographs of injuries;
medical treatment;
a witness who heard yelling;
text messages sent shortly afterward;
location information placing both people there;
body-camera footage showing the person's condition when police arrived; or
statements the accused allegedly made afterward.
But corroboration is rarely an all-or-nothing concept.
A surveillance camera might confirm that both people were present without showing an assault.
A 911 call might confirm that the caller was upset without establishing why.
A photograph might show an injury without establishing who caused it.
A text message might support one portion of an account and contradict another.
A good criminal defense investigation does not simply ask:
“Is there corroboration?”
It asks:
“Exactly what does this evidence corroborate?”
Start With the Timeline
One of the first things I want to do in an accusation-based case is build a timeline. Not a vague summary. An actual timeline.
When did the alleged conduct occur?
When did the alleged victim leave?
When were text messages exchanged?
When did someone first call a friend or family member?
When was 911 called?
When did police arrive?
When were photographs taken?
When did the person seek medical care?
When was the accused contacted?
What happened in the hours or days between the alleged incident and the police report?
A timeline can expose details that are easy to overlook when reading police reports separately. For example, a report may say an argument lasted “for hours.” The dispatch records may show when the first call was actually made. Text messages may reveal what the parties were discussing during the same time period. Surveillance footage may establish when someone entered or left a location. A person's location history may contradict a claimed sequence of events. None of those facts necessarily proves the entire case. Together, however, they can change how the accusation looks.
What Does the 911 Call Actually Say?
If there was a 911 call, I want it. Not simply the officer's summary of what dispatch reported. The actual call. A 911 recording can be valuable because it captures what someone said relatively close in time to the event, before they have gone through multiple police interviews or court proceedings. I want to know:
What did the caller initially say happened?
What did they not say?
What were they asking police to do?
What was happening in the background?
Did the caller describe an injury?
Did they describe a threat?
Did they identify the accused?
Was the dispute still ongoing?
Did the focus of the call change?
Are there differences between the 911 call and a later police interview?
Sometimes a 911 call strongly supports the State's case. Sometimes it does not. Either way, the defense needs to hear it.
What About Body-Camera Footage?
Body-camera footage can be some of the most valuable evidence in an accusation-based criminal case. Police reports contain summaries. Body cameras may show the actual interaction. The footage can reveal:
the alleged victim's initial statements;
physical appearance;
visible injuries—or the absence of visible injuries;
emotional state;
statements from other witnesses;
conversations among officers;
the layout of the scene;
the accused person's statements;
inconsistencies between witnesses;
things officers asked about;
things officers never investigated; and
context that never made it into the written report.
This does not mean body-camera footage always helps the defense. Sometimes it significantly strengthens the prosecution's case. But I want to know that before I advise my client. I do not want to evaluate a serious criminal accusation based only on the paragraph an officer chose to write about a twenty-minute recorded conversation.
Are There Text Messages Before and After the Alleged Incident?
Phones can provide incredibly important context. In domestic-violence, assault, threatening, stalking, kidnapping, and similar cases, I often want to know what communications occurred both before and after the alleged offense. Messages immediately before an incident may show what the parties were arguing about. Messages during the relevant time period may establish timing. Messages afterward may show what each person believed had happened. They may contain apologies, accusations, threats, explanations, requests to return property, discussions about children, housing disputes, relationship problems, or completely ordinary conversations. Again, there is no universal rule about what subsequent behavior “should” look like after a crime. People react differently. But subsequent communications are still evidence. The defense should not ignore them simply because the police report begins and ends with the accusation.
What About Location Data?
Location evidence can be extremely useful when the allegation includes claims about where someone was and whenthey were there.
Depending on the case and what information is available, that might include:
phone location information;
mapping history;
photographs containing time or location information;
rideshare records;
credit-card purchases;
parking records;
vehicle information;
work records; or
other digital records.
Suppose someone alleges that an incident occurred at a particular location during a specific window of time. If objective records establish that one of the people was somewhere else, that can be enormously important. Even if location data does not completely disprove the allegation, it can help test whether the timeline being presented is actually possible.
What About Surveillance Video?
Surveillance evidence can disappear quickly. Businesses routinely overwrite video. Home-security systems may retain footage for only a limited period. Doorbell-camera clips may be deleted. Parking-lot cameras may capture only certain angles. That is why identifying potential video evidence early matters. If an allegation supposedly happened:
inside or outside a restaurant;
in a store;
in a hotel;
in an apartment complex;
near a gas station;
in a parking lot;
near someone's home; or
around another business,
I want to know whether cameras were nearby. And I do not want to wait six months to ask. One frustrating issue in criminal cases is discovering that potentially useful video once existed but was never requested and has since been overwritten. Sometimes the absence of surveillance means there is simply no evidence to review. Other times, the failure to obtain evidence that could have objectively tested the accusation becomes part of how we evaluate the investigation itself.
What If There Are No Injuries?
The absence of injury can matter. But it does not automatically disprove an accusation. Not every assault produces a visible injury. Not every act of restraint leaves bruises. And many Arizona offenses do not require the State to prove a serious physical injury in the first place. The better question is:
What is being alleged, and would we reasonably expect physical evidence from that particular allegation?
If someone describes a prolonged, violent assault and claims significant physical force was used, the medical and photographic evidence may become particularly important.
Did police photograph the person?
Did body-camera footage capture the relevant area?
Was medical care sought?
Were injuries documented later?
Do the physical findings match the mechanism of injury being described?
Or did investigators simply write “no visible injuries” and move on?
The significance depends on the accusation.
Delayed Reporting Matters—but It Does Not Automatically Mean Someone Is Lying
Another issue I examine is when the accusation was first reported. Sometimes police are called immediately. Sometimes an allegation is reported hours, days, weeks, or even longer afterward. A delay does not automatically make an accusation false. There can be many reasons someone does not immediately contact law enforcement. But from an investigative standpoint, the delay matters because it affects what evidence may have existed. If a serious incident allegedly occurred at a business three days earlier, was surveillance footage requested? If someone says they were injured, were photographs taken close in time? If another person allegedly witnessed the aftermath, was that person interviewed? Were relevant text messages preserved?mWas location evidence available? The defense should examine both the explanation for the delay and what evidence was lost or became harder to obtain because of it.
What Did the Police Actually Investigate?
This is a question that can get overlooked. and Police are not required to conduct the investigation the defense wishes they had conducted. on But the scope of the investigation can still matter when evaluating the strength of the evidence.
If someone says an event occurred at a location covered by cameras, did anyone request the video?
If they identify witnesses, were those people interviewed?
If they say threatening messages existed, were the messages collected?
If they describe injuries, were the injuries photographed?
If the timeline depends on when someone arrived at a location, did anyone verify that information?
Did police interview both sides?
Did they follow up when stories conflicted?
Sometimes the answer is yes, and the resulting evidence strengthens the State's case. Sometimes important leads were never pursued. The defense may need to do that work.
Inconsistencies Are Not All Equal
Clients frequently point out inconsistencies and understandably think every inconsistency proves the accusation is false. It is usually more complicated than that. People do not recount events with perfect consistency. Minor differences about whether something happened at 9:10 or 9:20 p.m. may mean very little. But other inconsistencies can be significant. For example:
Did the alleged conduct change?
Did the claimed location change?
Did the person initially describe an argument and later describe a physical assault?
Was a major fact absent from the 911 call but added later?
Did one witness say the accused never left while another places the accused elsewhere?
Does objective evidence contradict a critical part of the timeline?
The defense has to separate ordinary human inconsistencies from contradictions that affect the elements of the offense or the credibility of the accusation.
Evidence Can Also Corroborate the Defense
Corroboration is not something only the prosecution gets to use. A client's account can also be tested against objective evidence.
If my client says:
“I left at 9:00,”
can we verify that?
If the client says:
“She continued texting me afterward,”
do the messages exist?
If the client says:
“We went to dinner with her family after the alleged incident,”
is there evidence of that?
If the client says:
“The argument was about moving out of the house, not about what she later told police,”
what do the texts, 911 calls, or witnesses show?
I do not want to simply accept my client's story because I am the defense lawyer.
I want to test it.
A defense becomes stronger when objective evidence supports what the client is telling me.
“Why Didn't the Police Find This?”
Sometimes they did. Sometimes the information is sitting in discovery and needs to be recognized for what it is. Sometimes police did not know the evidence existed. Sometimes nobody preserved it. Sometimes investigators focused on evidence supporting probable cause and did not pursue every potential contradiction. A criminal-defense investigation serves a different purpose. The defense is asking: What evidence can test the State's theory? That may require going beyond the initial police investigation.
The Absence of Corroboration Can Still Matter
If Arizona law allows a jury to convict based on an alleged victim's testimony alone, does missing corroboration matter at all? Absolutely.
There is a difference between legally sufficient evidence and persuasive evidence. A jury may be permitted to convict based on one person's credible testimony. But jurors are also entitled to evaluate credibility and reasonable doubt. If the State alleges an event happened in a world where objective evidence should reasonably exist, jurors may want to know what that evidence shows. Or why it is missing. The defense may appropriately ask:
If this happened at a business, where is the surveillance?
If these threats were made by text, where are the messages?
If the incident lasted hours, what does the communication timeline show?
If someone called 911, what did they actually report at that time?
If there were supposed to be significant injuries, what did officers see?
If witnesses were present, what did they say?
If location data could confirm the story, was it investigated?
None of those questions automatically creates reasonable doubt by itself. Together, they may become very important.
Tucson Criminal Defense Is More Than Reading the Police Report
When someone comes to me after being accused of a crime in Tucson, I do not assume the accusation is true. I also do not assume it is false simply because there is no video or physical evidence. I want to investigate it. That means looking beyond the labels in the charging document and asking what evidence exists—or should exist—to test what each person says happened.
Depending on the case, that can mean reviewing:
911 calls;
body-camera footage;
police reports;
witness interviews;
text messages;
photographs;
medical evidence;
surveillance video;
phone and location information;
social-media communications;
receipts and transaction records;
timelines; and
evidence of what happened immediately before and after the alleged offense.
This is particularly important in Arizona domestic-violence, assault, threatening, stalking, kidnapping, unlawful-imprisonment, and other cases where there may be only two people who directly witnessed the central event.
“It's their word against mine” is not the end of the analysis.
It is often where the defense investigation begins.
If you have been accused of a misdemeanor or felony in Tucson or Pima County and the case depends largely on another person's allegation, a Tucson criminal defense attorney should identify the objective evidence that can test that accusation before important evidence disappears.
A police report tells you what someone said happened.
The defense investigation asks whether the rest of the evidence agrees.
This article provides general information about Arizona criminal law and criminal defense. It does not constitute legal advice for any individual case.
