What is the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence?

Direct evidence is evidence that is presented in court that proves or disproves the facts of a case without relying on inference or circumstantial evidence. This type of evidence usually comes in the form of testimony from witnesses, video or audio recordings, or physical evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on a chain of inferences to prove or disprove a case. This type of evidence is less precise than direct evidence, because it relies on interpretation and assumptions made by the jury. For example, someone witnessing a crime and then telling the police what they saw would be direct evidence. If the witness were to then tell the police that they saw the suspect running away from the scene of the crime, this would be seen as circumstantial evidence. In Washington, when a case goes to court, the judge and jury look at both direct and circumstantial evidence when making a decision. Both forms of evidence can be used to either convict or exonerate a suspect; however, the level of proof needed to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is much higher than with direct evidence. This is because the jury needs to be sure that all possible inference have been considered before making a decision.

Related FAQs

What is a motion to suppress in criminal procedure?
What is the concept of criminal responsibility?
What is the purpose of a grand jury indictment?
What is the purpose of a criminal trial?
What is the process of a criminal trial?
What is the role of the judge in criminal proceedings?
What is the purpose of criminal discovery?
What is the purpose of a criminal complaint?
What is sentencing in criminal cases?
What is the difference between criminal negligence and criminal intent?

What is the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts