What is the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence?

Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves the truth of an assertion, and is often based on personal knowledge or observation. For example, if a witness saw someone commit a crime, that witness’s testimony is considered direct evidence. Direct evidence does not need to be corroborated. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that indirectly suggests the truth of an assertion. For example, if a witness saw someone walking out of the scene of a crime, that would be considered circumstantial evidence. This evidence does not directly prove that the person committed the crime, but it does suggest that they were at the scene. Circumstantial evidence does often need to be corroborated, such as with another witness or other indirect evidence. In the courts of Virginia, both direct and circumstantial evidence are admissible and can be used to make a case. However, circumstantial evidence is often viewed skeptically, and it is up to the jury to determine the true value of such evidence.

Related FAQs

What is a court reporter?
What is a discovery violation?
What is a motion for a new trial?
What is a bailiff?
What is a writ of mandamus?
What is a dismissal with prejudice?
What is a perjury charge?
What is a jury selection process?
What is the difference between a summons and a complaint?
What is a discovery request?

What is the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts