What is the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence?

Direct evidence is evidence which proves a fact without any inference or presumption. It is evidence that directly proves the truth of an assertion and can stand alone without any additional supporting evidence. Examples of direct evidence include testimony or statements from witnesses or photographs. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, is evidence that is not direct but rather supports an inference or presumption. It provides indirect proof of an assertion and requires an interpretation or extrapolation of the facts. An example of circumstantial evidence is if a witness testifies that they heard a loud noise around the time of a crime; while this is not direct evidence that a crime was committed, it could lend indirect backing to an assertion or belief. In Washington, both direct and circumstantial evidence can be used in court. Depending on the type of case and the evidence available, either can be used to prove a fact or truth. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, with direct evidence usually being more convincing than circumstantial evidence. In civil cases, the standard of proof is lower, and circumstantial evidence can usually be used more liberally.

Related FAQs

What is a process server?
What is a motion to set aside a verdict?
What is attorney-client privilege?
How does a judge issue a ruling?
What is an expert witness?
What is a writ of habeas corpus?
What is a dismissal with prejudice?
What is the difference between a trial lawyer and a defense attorney?
What is a subpoena?
What is a default judgment?

What is the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts