Circumstantial Evidence

Legal Assistance

Circumstantial Evidence

Evidence is evidence based on conclusions to link it to a conclusion or fact, such as a fingerprint at the crime scene. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of a claim - that is, without the need for additional evidence or conclusions.

It is the necessity of the conclusion, not the obviousness of the fact to be concluded, that determines whether the evidence is circumstantial. Evidence is when facts are used to infer another fact. It explains what has already been said, but it does nothing else; it is not direct proof of what a witness has seen or heard.

Characterizing evidence as direct or indirect refers to the kind of conclusion that the finder of the fact draws from the evidence to use as proof that it is a fact. Direct evidence is direct evidence of a fact, such as the testimony of a witness or what the witness has seen or heard. Indirect evidence implies that something has happened that cannot be proven by proving one or more facts, but can be recognized as fact (proof of a chain of facts or circumstances) indicating whether a person is guilty or not.

It is important to understand the difference between the two types of evidence, as there are many myths and misunderstandings around the types of evidence used in court. In criminal cases, direct evidence is witness testimony about what was observed. Direct evidence may or may not be believed, but it tends to establish the fact in question, and the only problem that remains is the credibility of the facts.

All kinds of evidence can be offered, from oral testimony from witnesses to physical exhibits, including fingerprint test results and documents. Physical evidence, forensic evidence and fingerprints are circumstantial. On that evidence, the jury cannot reach reasonable conclusions without direct evidence.

Evidence proving that a suspect has committed a crime is known as direct evidence. Factual evidence showing that a person has committed the crime can be used to meet the standard of proof of guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. In many cases there is no direct evidence of a crime, but prosecutors can use evidence that shows that the defendant committed the crime.

Due to the frequency of false identification and false testimony, the conclusive evidence is often considered more reliable than the direct evidence. Indeed, the US Supreme Court has declared that circumstantial evidence "is no different than direct witness testimony" (United States v. 348 US 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. A person can be convicted of a crime on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical impact on the presentation and admissibility of evidence in court. Books, movies, and television have perpetuated the belief that "circumstantial evidence" should not be used to convict someone of a crime. As a result, circumstantial evidence will be considered for a jury to decide whether a person charged with a crime is convicted or acquitted.

In states where prosecutors rely on circumstantial evidence to prove that a suspect is guilty of a crime, the court can instruct jurors that evidence of guilt should only be considered if it is incompatible with innocence. In many states, juries are instructed to review evidence against a defendant found in the victim's handbag using a special test. If there is no "circumstantial evidence," the jury instruction tells them that to convict the defendant on the basis of the evidence, they must not consider the evidence to be compatible with the defendant's guilt or that it must not be "compatible with innocence".     

The prosecutor can provide photographic evidence of the victims "injuries. If the victim or an eyewitness testifies that the accused has hit the victim, this is considered direct evidence of battery. However, if the photographic evidence is circumstantial, the jury must connect the dots to determine whether the defendant caused the injuries and was therefore guilty of a crime.

An example of circumstantial evidence is the conduct of a person at the time of an alleged crime. In the case of a person accused of theft, who was seen on a shopping trip at the time of the theft and bought expensive items, the shopping trip could provide evidence of the guilt of the defendants. Eyewitnesses can testify that the suspect shot the victim, but there is no direct evidence.

Other examples of circumstantial evidence include fingerprint, blood and DNA analysis of evidence found at the scene. For example, an eyewitness may testify that he saw the defendant driving at 90 miles per hour 15 minutes before his arrest, but the finder may actually explain why the speed stopped to conclude that the defendant was driving too fast at the time of his arrest. The reliability of the radar test and of the operator who carried it out may be called into question.

As prescribed, the only evidence is circumstantial. Evidence indicates that the evidence does not prove a decisive fact. In other words, there must be reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.

For example, if Larry stopped at the scene of the accident to help an injured motorist who was on his way to Susan's house, it would explain his bloody condition. For example, there was an assault on Oconnell Street at 6.15 p.m. and you could testify that you saw the defendant walking down Oconnell Street at that time. If the prosecutor can prove that the defendant intended to steal when entering the store, he could be charged with burglary.