Circumstantial evidence is sometimes referred to as indirect evidence. This evidence often just strongly suggests a certain fact, but does not completely prove it. Like direct evidence, there are several types of circumstantial evidence. Threatening comments and differential treatment prior to a crime are typically considered to be circumstantial evidence, along with a suspect's behavior after a crime. Additionally, witnesses and forensic evidence are also sometimes considered to be circumstantial.
Discriminatory or threatening comments uttered toward an individual before a crime is committed are one common type of circumstantial evidence. This can include such things as slanderous comments or threats uttered to either the victim or a third party. An individual who declared he wanted to kill a person just one week before that person's murder, for example, may be investigators' number one suspect. Simply uttering these words, however, does not prove that he murdered the victim. This evidence is circumstantial, since these words may have simply been uttered in anger, with no intention of actually following through.
Another type of circumstantial evidence deals with how a victim was treated prior to a crime. An individual who treated an assault victim poorly, for example, may be investigated by police. A person who seemed obsessed with or stalked a woman may also be investigated for her rape. Although these individuals both treated the victims differently than other people, this evidence is considered circumstantial.
The way a certain individual, or suspect, acts after a crime is committed is another example of circumstantial evidence. A good example of this is the individual who spends an unusually large amount of money after a robbery. Another example involves a suspect who seems overly nervous while being questioned after a murder. This evidence is circumstantial, since he may be nervous because he committed the crime, but he also may be nervous simply because he is being questioned for a heinous crime.
Eye witness accounts are sometimes considered to be circumstantial evidence as well. A witness, who sees a suspect standing over a victim with a murder weapon, although seemingly damning evidence, is considered to be circumstantial evidence, for example. The suspect could have merely stumbled upon the scene and accidentally picked up the weapon. Corroborating evidence, such as another witness who saw him commit the crime, would often be needed to get a conviction.
Although many people believe that forensic evidence is direct evidence, it is often thought of as circumstantial evidence. Blood analysis, DNA analysis, and fingerprinting can be helpful to catching the perpetrator of the crime. It often needs other corroborating evidence, however, to support it.
Direct Evidence
In law, direct evidence is that which proves or disproves innocence without requiring inference on the part of the judge or jury. There are several different types of direct evidence, including witness testimony, audio or video recordings, and documentation. Some forms of evidence, such as DNA samples, may be considered direct evidence only in certain cases.
Eyewitness testimony is one of the most common types of direct evidence. If a witness sees or hears a criminal act, he can relate the events to the best of his ability. In general, courts assume that a witness is an objective party who can be relied upon to relate the events as they happened, without requiring the court to make an inference as to what happened. Visual testimony from a witness, such as watching the defendant shoot a victim, is usually considered the most reliable form of direct evidence. If a witness only hears a gunshot, he or she cannot directly testify as to who shot the gun, and therefore may be giving circumstantial, rather than direct, evidence.
Though witness testimony is one of the most frequently used types of direct evidence, it is not always fully reliable. Witnesses may have biases that can affect their testimony, or may have difficulty remembering the exact sequence of events due to stress or shock. Judges and juries must determine the reliability and objectivity of the witness when considering how to weigh direct evidence from an eyewitness.
More reliable forms of direct evidence include audio and video recordings. Since a tape recorder or video camera cannot have a bias, the objectivity of this type of evidence is usually unquestionable. Surveillance tapes, wiretap recordings, and even cell phone recordings can all serve as a direct form of objective evidence that establishes what actually happened during a crime. In some cases, however, recordings may be inadmissible as evidence if they are obtained illegally; for instance, in California, it is sometimes illegal to make a recording of a person without his or her knowledge. In order to make sure that recordings can be used, lawyers and legal officials must take care to follow all applicable laws of evidence gathering.
Documentation used as direct evidence might include emails, letters, or diary entries. These are generally only considered direct if they contain the actual crime, such as an email that includes death threats. If a perpetrator confesses his or her crimes via written correspondence, or a witness details an account of a crime in writing, it may also be considered a form of factual evidence.
In paternity cases, DNA evidence can serve as a form of direct, factual evidence. DNA is widely considered a reliable method of establishing paternity, and thus does not merely infer that a child is related by blood to a father or mother, but serves as objective proof of the fact. In many criminal cases, however, DNA evidence such as fingerprints or blood matches is considered circumstantial. While it may prove that a person was present at a crime scene, it does not objectively show whether or not the person in question committed a crime.
Legal Evidence
Legal evidence is material that can be used in pursuit of a legal case. The evidence is brought to court for the purpose of demonstrating or refuting a point related to a case. There are many different types of evidence, and legal systems in most nations have strict rules regarding admissibility of evidence, evidence collection, and related matters. The goal of carefully regulating evidence is to ensure that only evidence that is valid and relevant is brought to court.
A classic example of legal evidence is testimonial evidence from witnesses, which can include direct evidence about an event someone saw firsthand, as well as indirect evidence, like a professional opinion. Witnesses can make unreliable evidence because they can have imperfect memories or may have been influenced by things that occurred between the event and the trial. Attorneys are careful about how they question and interact with witnesses to ensure that the evidence provided will be of the highest quality possible.
Another type of evidence is documentary evidence, including paper documentation of anything relating to the trial. This can include documents such as contracts, telephone bills, and personal letters, as well as other written materials. Recordings in other mediums such as photography, audio, and video are also forms of documentary evidence. This evidence can again be direct, as in the case of a contract brought in to demonstrate the facts associated with a contract dispute, or indirect, such as a letter that may demonstrate the character of the defendant.
Demonstrative evidence is legal evidence that is designed to demonstrate or illuminate some aspect of a case. It includes things like models, charts, and other displays that help the jury understand the facts of the case. When cases are complex, seeing the details of the case walked through in a model can be useful for some jurors. For example, a computer animation could provide an overview of events at a crime scene as described by witnesses.
Real evidence is physical material from a crime. This type of legal evidence includes hairs and fibers, weapons, and other physical objects. Real evidence may be subjected to analysis in a lab as part of an investigation.
Rules of legal evidence state that the evidence must be relevant to the case and it must be presented in its original form unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. Copies of evidence are not admitted due to concerns about tampering. An exception might be a case where evidence is too fragile or has been destroyed during testing, in which case a copied version may be accepted, as long as it is clearly labeled as such.
Prepared by,
Denesh A/L Munisviran
A133030