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

Direct evidence is evidence that directly shows the facts at hand, such as a confession or an eyewitness. It is usually used to prove that a certain crime occurred and that a certain person is responsible. This type of evidence is usually considered more reliable than circumstantial evidence in criminal trials. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that indirectly suggests that a certain crime occurred and that a certain person is responsible. It is usually used to give the jury an idea of what happened, but is not definitive. Examples of circumstantial evidence include items of clothing recovered near the scene of a crime, communications among an accused and the victim, and testimony from non-eyewitnesses about what they heard. In Washington, both direct and circumstantial evidence are considered valid by a jury. During criminal trials, both types of evidence can be presented and can be challenged by the defense. Although both are considered valid, direct evidence is often seen as more reliable because there is no way for the defense to challenge that evidence. The prosecution must prove that the evidence is accurate, and this can be difficult to do if it applies to circumstantial evidence.

Related FAQs

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

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts