What Exactly is Circumstantial Evidence and How is It Different From Direct Evidence?

Oftentimes in the news, in court, and even in television and movies you hear someone claim that the case against a defendant is all or largely circumstantial. What if there is very little direct evidence against a defendant and most of the case against him is circumstantial evidence? What if the entire case against the defendant is Circumstantial? Can and will the Defendant be convicted solely on Circumstantial Evidence? Good questions, but to answer them we must define the different types of evidence in a criminal case.

Definition of Circumstantial Evidence vs. Direct Evidence

Circumstantial evidence is proof that indirectly supports a fact in question, requiring an inference to connect the evidence to the fact. It contrasts with direct evidence, which directly proves the fact. For example, a witness saying they saw a suspect fleeing a crime scene is circumstantial evidence, while a witness saying they saw the suspect commit the crime is direct evidence. For more insight, call Mark D. Hauser to be your Philadelphia drug lawyer.

Common Example of Circumstantial Evidence

The best way to explain circumstantial evidence is to give you an example (the one that judges commonly use in jury instructions at the end of the trial): If you go to bed at night and there is no snow on the ground and you wake up the next morning and there is actual, real snow on the ground, did it snow while you were sleeping that night? The obvious answer is yes and this is strong circumstantial evidence. (I added actual, real snow to the example because I woke up one morning years ago in April and there was fake snow on the ground because they were filming a movie (“In Her Shoes” starring Cameron Diaz) by 16th and Spruce Street in Philadelphia!)

Can a Defendant Be Convicted Solely on Circumstantial Evidence?

The answer to the second question is yes, you can be convicted solely on circumstantial evidence (despite what the public thinks), but this is rare. In fact, in jury trials in Pennsylvania the judge instructs the jury during his or her charge (instructions) that a defendant can be convicted solely by Circumstantial Evidence. Generally though the jury likes some Direct Evidence like physical evidence and/or eyewitness testimony.

How Circumstantial Evidence Works in Practice

Circumstantial evidence is indirect proof that doesn't directly demonstrate the truth of a claim but provides a basis for a reasonable inference. It requires an inference and a logical conclusion must be drawn from the evidence to establish the fact it supports. People draw reasonable inferences in their everyday lives all the time through their own logic so they can also relate to Circumstantial Evidence even if they prefer Direct or Physical Evidence. When they apply and consider Circumstantial Evidence it makes them feel like they are a detective like on their favorite television shows.

The Role of Direct and Circumstantial Evidence in Criminal Cases

Hence, both Direct Evidence and Circumstantial Evidence can be strong and convincing, and the weight given to each is determined by the jury or fact-finder. In criminal cases Circumstantial Evidence is often crucial, especially when Direct Evidence is lacking.

Types of Evidence in Criminal Cases

In criminal cases, evidence can be broadly categorized into real/physical evidence, demonstrative evidence, documentary evidence, and testimonial evidence. Real evidence includes tangible items present at the crime scene or related to the crime, like a weapon or DNA sample. Demonstrative evidence uses visual aids, like charts or diagrams, to illustrate a witness's testimony or the crime scene. Documentary evidence consists of written materials like documents, emails, or phone records. Testimonial evidence is given by witnesses under oath, either in person or through statements. Rely on your aggravated assault defense lawyer in Philadelphia to guide you through the process.

Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony

While juries like eyewitness testimony, generally they know that it can often be unreliable so they like other types of evidence too in a criminal case. Eyewitness testimony is often unreliable due to the fallibility of human memory, which is a reconstructive rather than a perfect recording process. Several factors can distort memories, making them less accurate over time and leading to inaccuracies in testimony.