What are the differences between direct and circumstantial evidence in criminal trials?

In Maryland criminal trials, there are two types of evidence presented by prosecutors: direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is when an eyewitness or expert testimony directly states that the accused has committed the crime. This could be a witness seeing the accused do the crime, or an expert testifying that their tests and measurements confirm a certain fact. Circumstantial evidence is more indirect. It includes statements that suggest what happened or could have happened, but that don’t directly prove guilt or innocence. Examples include things like a person’s behavior before or after the crime or testimony from an expert that suggests a certain fact. Circumstantial evidence is usually used to supplement direct evidence, but it can sometimes be used on its own. Direct evidence is usually stronger than circumstantial evidence because it directly confirms certain facts. However, circumstantial evidence can be just as reliable, especially when it is looked at as a whole. In Maryland, both types of evidence are allowed in criminal trials, with the judge and jurors deciding what amounts to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Related FAQs

What is the role of the prosecution in a criminal case?
What are the rules for hearsay evidence in criminal trials?
What is the role of the grand jury in criminal cases?
What is the purpose of a grand jury indictment?
What is the role of the United States Supreme Court in criminal cases?
What is the difference between a direct and an indirect appeal?
What is probable cause in criminal procedure?
What is the impact of the Fourth Amendment on criminal law?
What are the rights of a suspect during a criminal investigation?
What is the process of jury selection for criminal cases?

What are the differences between direct and circumstantial evidence in criminal trials?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts