I'm writing a story and need to know some things for factual accuracy.
There's a man in the story who is accused of a DUI hit-and-run. He's discovered (sleeping) in the vehicle after the hit and run. However, it's actually another person who committed the hit and run, then moved the (still sleeping) guy from the passenger side to the driver's side. There is very little evidence (witnesses, CCTV, etc.) of the accident, and basically there's only circumstantial evidence linking him to the crime; he was in the guilty vehicle immediately after the accident.
What happens when there's not enough evidence in a trial (When it's pretty obvious that the guy committed the crime, but he doesn't remember anything and therefore does not admit to the crime)?
Do they do further research?
When is the further research done?
Is the trial paused while the research goes on?
Does the trial end as "not enough evidence" then a separate trial starts after research/collection of evidence is done?
Similarly (but separately), what happens if, in the middle of a trial, (like between the sessions of a single trial) further evidence is found that suggests a different story?
I'll be specific: In the story, the trial goes on, then in the middle, evidence is found that essentially proves the existence of a second person in the car at the time of the accident (while it was originally believed that there was only one).
What happens when something like that happens? Is time alotted for the research and discovery of the identity of that "second person" (who can offer further evidence, or in this case, is the actual criminal)?