Terms
Direct Evidence
One of the most important characteristics of evidence is its reliability . The two types of evidence used in court proceedings are direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. While one or the other can be valuable solely in the conviction of a criminal, the presence of both can solidify a case.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that doesn't establish guilt in a straightforward sense, but it gives a rise to an inference of guilt. For example, a receipt for purchasing a gun is direct evidence that a certain person owned the gun but indirect that he used it in committing a crime. Circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient, but may also be more certain, satisfying and persuasive than direct evidence.
As its name suggests, direct evidence relates immediately to the allegation being tested. If the direct evidence is true, the allegation is established. Direct evidence, on the other hand, is evidence of a fact based on a witness's personal knowledge or observation of that fact. An example of direct evidence would be the surveillance video of a person robbing a convenience store, or a witness who saw a person stealing a car. A person's guilt of a charged crime may be proven by direct evidence alone, if that evidence satisfies a jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt regarding that crime.
The law draws no distinction between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence in terms of weight or importance. Direct evidence or circumstantial evidence may be enough to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, depending on the facts of the case as the jury finds them.
Direct evidence can have varying degrees of clout depending on the actual witness delivering the testimony. Direct evidence from a legitimate, trust-worthy source will have a stronger bearing on the jury than that of a shady character, even under oath. Bending the truth a little here and there can skew direct evidence and is common with defense testimony.
Whether direct evidence or circumstantial evidence is the basis for testimony, the jury must be able to determine what facts were proven, if any at all. Any facts, upon which an inference of guilt can be drawn, must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. After the facts have been determined, the jury can decide what inferences can be drawn from those facts. Direct evidence alleviates the majority of inferential thinking because it is based on the sole observation of the fact, and not on the basis that "this is probably what happened because of this."
If you would like to speak to a qualified and experienced attorney in your area, please contact us.
Related News
Sept 25, 2006 - Former Black Panther Seeks New Trial After 30 Years
All of your criminal, DUI, DWI, OUI lawyer needs in one place!
Let us help you locate an attorney. Use the form to find a criminal law attorney in your area.
Law Offices of Grech & Firetag
Serving Southern California for over 30 years, the Law Offices of Grech & Firetag have earned a reputation of being competent and providing personal attention to every case.
Call Toll Free - (888) 529-5632
