[throwaway892238]

> It's an opinion from someone who hates you/benefits from convicting you.

Hence why the opposing side gets the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, and why it would be a really bad idea to put forward a witness who clearly has a grudge against the accused. In cross you just show they have a grudge and now their testimony is suspect.

> Now, if they had actual evidence it'd be different

It is actual evidence. I don't think you know what evidence is...

[jojobas]

By "actual evidence" people usually mean evidence that can't be discarded as easily as testimony.

[throwaway892238]

If the testimony is easily dismissable, then submitting it would be bad for their case. They wouldn't submit it as evidence unless it could be backed up or was reasonable. It's a serious mistake to underestimate testimony as somehow less useful in a case.

[jojobas]

"He said, she said" is easy to dismiss. "He said, she presented a CCTV recording" is a different story.

Hard/soft evidence are established legal terms.

[throwaway892238]

The CCTV recording would be direct conclusive evidence. In the absence of such evidence, testimony that can't be disproven in cross and casts reasonable doubt will work just fine.

Even with a CCTV recording, you can use testimony to cast the CCTV recording in a light favorable to either the prosecution or defense. The circumstances surrounding evidence are weighed in order to come to a verdict or judgement.

Court cases are not about "who has the most incontrovertible proof", they are about convincing a judge or jury of an idea in order to get a specific outcome. Do not underestimate testimony (or really, any evidence that you think is inferior)