What is the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence?

Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence are two types of evidence commonly used in criminal law and proceedings. While both can be used to prove the guilt or innocence of a defendant, there is a distinct difference between the two. Direct evidence is defined as evidence that directly proves the fact in dispute. This type of evidence can be seen or experienced firsthand by the fact-finder, such as an eye witness account or a confession. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence is evidence that may not directly prove the fact in dispute but can be used to infer or suggest a fact in dispute. For example, if a drug is found in a defendant’s possession, it may be circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s involvement in a drug crime. The primary difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is that direct evidence proves the fact in dispute without inference or implication while circumstantial evidence is suggestive of that fact. In drug crime cases in New York, prosecutors must present both types of evidence to obtain a conviction. Therefore, circumstantial evidence must be weighed along with direct evidence when considering the defendant’s guilt or innocence.

Related FAQs

What is the difference between intent to sell and possession for sale?
What is the role of a plea bargain in a criminal trial?
What are the laws for manufacturing a controlled substance?
What is a drug-free workplace?
What is the difference between a plea of not guilty and a plea of nolo contendere?
What is an inference in a drug case?
What are the defense strategies for drug charges?
What is the difference between possession and trafficking?
What are the effects of drug use?
What is the federal penalty for drug possession?

What is the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts