At a trial for the arson of three warehouses, the prosecution was unable to present any direct evidence linking the defendant to the crime. Instead, the prosecution presented several witnesses who testified that they saw the defendant near each of the warehouses shortly before the buildings caught on fire and one witness who testified that she saw the defendant running away from one of the warehouses while it was on fire. The defendant did not object to the testimony of any of the prosecution's witnesses. At the close of the prosecution's case, the defendant's attorney moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the prosecution failed to meet its burden to show that the defendant committed the crimes because the prosecution did not present any direct evidence linking him to the crime scenes. Should the judge grant the defendant's motion and dismiss the charges against him? a. Yes, because the prosecution must present at least some direct evidence of the defendant's guilt during its case in chief.
b. Yes, because a jury cannot find a defendant guilty based solely on circumstantial evidence.
c. No, because a criminal defendant can be convicted based solely on circumstantial evidence.
d. No, because the witnesses' testimony was direct evidence of what they saw.