Question needs clarification - as worded it makes no sense. An attempt to introduce "circumstantial evidence" can be made at trial, and is usually objected to by the other side. The presiding judge will 'examine" the evidence and then rule on its admissability, or inadmissabilty. I don't know how this relates to anyone being "released," BUT, if due to the inadmissability of the circumstantial evidence, the defendant is found 'not guilty' then I guess you could say that he was 'released.' If this is not the answer to the question, it needs to be re-worded and re-submitted.