Introduction
The rules and legal precepts that control how facts are proven in a judicial procedure are collectively referred to as the law of evidence or the rules of evidence. These regulations specify which evidence the trier of fact must or must not take into account while making its decision. In instances involving a jury, the trier of fact is either the jury or the judge in bench trials. however, the Criminal evidence presented is divided into two distinct: direct and circumstantial. Although each of these pieces of evidence has the potential to be helpful in criminal cases, it is crucial to comprehend how they differ and what role they play in both criminal and evidentiary law (Gardner & Anderson, 2015).
Direct evidence
The legal definition of direct evidence is evidence that establishes a fact without the use of any inference or presumption. In terms of law, direct evidence is proof that can stand alone and doesn’t need any supporting evidence. It is evidence that, if accepted by a jury, establishes the veracity of a certain claim or that a specific event took place. A fact in an issue may be supported or refuted using this kind of evidence. Eyewitness testimony, written materials, tangible objects, and admissions are only a few examples of the many diverse kinds of direct evidence (Ingram, 2021). The most frequent type of direct evidence is eyewitness testimony. Direct evidence must be reliable and pertinent to the subject at hand to be accepted. Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence are frequently compared. Direct evidence must adhere to the standards of the rules of evidence to be admitted in court. While each jurisdiction has its requirements, generally speaking, the evidence must be pertinent, trustworthy, and free from any privileges or objections.
Circumstantial evidence
In criminal proceedings, circumstantial evidence is utilized to prove guilt or innocence. With a few clear exceptions like immaturity, incapacity, or mental disease, the majority of offenders attempt to avoid producing direct proof. Thus, to establish intent, the prosecution typically needs to rely on circumstantial evidence. The actions of a person in the vicinity of an accused offense are one type of circumstantial evidence. In the case of someone accused of stealing money, if the suspect was observed on a shopping spree immediately after the alleged theft, buying expensive products, the frenzy may serve as circumstantial proof of the person’s guilt. Circumstantial evidence alone allows for multiple explanations. It can be necessary to use various circumstantial evidence pieces so that each validates the findings reached by the others. Together, they might provide stronger evidence for one specific inference over another. Once alternative explanations have been ruled out, a circumstantial explanation becomes more likely. A fact-finder can infer the existence of a fact through circumstantial evidence. The trier of fact draws the inference in criminal law to prove the veracity of a claim of guilt or innocence (Britz, 2015).
Different Classifications of Evidence
Reasonable doubt. This is directly associated with circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is linked to reasonable doubt because it is based on inference. It was established because circumstantial evidence might not be enough to fairly convict a defendant. A juror can declare the defendant guilty of the offense with absolute moral certainty if there is a reasonable doubt, which is referred to as the highest standard of proof employed in court. Even when circumstantial evidence is insufficient to condemn or exonerate a defendant, it can nonetheless influence other judgments that are made about the case (Hails, 2013).
Testimony. Testimony can be either direct or indirect evidence. A witness who claims to have witnessed a defendant knife a victim, for instance, is offering direct evidence. Contrarily, circumstantial evidence is a witness’s claim that she observed the defendant enter a home, heard screams, and saw the defendant leaving with a bloody knife. Whether the evidence is circumstantial is determined by the need for inference rather than the transparency of the fact inferred (Ingram, 2021).
Forensic evidence. When provided by an expert witness, forensic evidence is typically considered circumstantial evidence. Forensic scientists or engineers, for instance, may present test data showing that a defendant’s gun was used to discharge bullets or that a car was moving over the speed limit, but not definitely that the defendant shot the gun or was the driver of the car. When there is barely any direct evidence, circumstantial evidence is very crucial (Hails, 2013).
The Validity of Circumstantial Evidence over Direct Evidence
Contrary to common belief, indirect/circumstantial evidence is not less reliable or significant than direct evidence, which is generally regarded as the strongest kind of proof. Circumstantial evidence is frequently the basis of successful civil lawsuits as well as the majority of successful criminal cases. The term “smoking gun” refers to proof based on circumstantial evidence and is a typical metaphor for the strongest evidence attainable in any situation. Similar to circumstantial evidence, which supports the drawing of an inference, sound recordings, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, pictures, and many other types of physical evidence are all regarded as very strong possible proof (Ingram, 2021).
In actuality, circumstantial evidence may be preferable to direct evidence because it might come from a variety of sources that check and support one another. Eyewitness testimony can occasionally be unreliable, and many people have been found guilty based on fabricated or otherwise incorrect testimony. Strong circumstantial evidence might therefore offer a more solid foundation for a judgment. The foundation for the inclusion of circumstantial evidence is typically laid by a witness, such as the police officer who discovered the material or an expert who evaluated it. This witness, often referred to as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is providing direct eyewitness testimony and may have credibility issues, just like any other eyewitness (Hails, 2013). However, the validity of Eyewitness testimony is frequently questionable because of the possibility of outright fabrication.
Conclusion
The two main categories of circumstantial evidence are biological and physical. Physical evidence is any tangible thing that can prove a crime was done or connect a suspect to a crime scene. Any physiological fluid or tissue that can be used to identify a specific person is considered biological evidence, such as DNA. Eyewitness accounts may occasionally be regarded as circumstantial evidence as well. Circumstantial evidence, for instance, would be used if a witness observed the defendant nearby the crime site but did not witness the crime itself being committed. In contrast, without the use of any inference or presumption, direct evidence proves that a fact is true. A fact in question may be supported or refuted by direct evidence. Direct evidence can take the form of documentation, physical objects, eyewitness testimony, and admissions.
References
Britz, M. (2015) Criminal Evidence (2nd edition). Pearson.
Gardner, T. J., & Anderson, T. M. (2015). Criminal evidence: Principles and cases. Cengage Learning.
Hails, J. (2013). Criminal evidence. Cengage Learning.
Ingram, J. L. (2021). Criminal evidence. Routledge.
write