There’s an old saying that it’s “not what the prosecution knows, it’s what they can prove.” It takes evidence to prove someone’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In any criminal case, evidence is generally either circumstantial or direct. If you’re facing charges, understanding the difference between the two types of evidence can help you better evaluate your situation and make informed decisions.
What’s direct evidence?
This is evidence that doesn’t require any kind of interpretation or inference. In other words, there’s no reason for a prosecutor to walk jurors or judges through any connecting points to the crime. Direct evidence commonly includes eyewitness testimony, confessions, audio recordings and security footage.
What is circumstantial evidence?
This is evidence that does not directly prove any fact of the crime but, when taken as a whole, allows a jury or judge to draw their own conclusions. Circumstantial evidence is why prosecutors often talk about a defendant’s motives for a crime, since that helps “paint a picture” or tell a story that fits all the evidence together.
Examples include things like fingerprints or DNA evidence at the scene of a crime, searches related to the criminal action on someone’s phone or computer and physical evidence found in someone’s possession. However, circumstantial evidence is often open to interpretation.
A classic example of direct evidence versus circumstantial is this: If you step outside and see water falling from the sky with your own eyes, that’s direct evidence that it’s raining. If you see someone enter a building carrying a wet umbrella and leaving wet footprints on the floor, that’s circumstantial evidence that it’s raining – or the person who walked in could have just strolled through the lawn sprinklers.
When you’re determining a defense strategy, it’s very important to understand the way that direct evidence and circumstantial evidence can be used – and it can take skill to challenge either in court. Experienced legal guidance is wise.