Whether you are on the side of the defense or prosecution during a case, there will be two key forms of evidence that will have to be taken into consideration.
The first is a direct form, one that points directly to the defendant committing the crime or offense in question. The other is circumstantial, a facet that insinuates and infers guilt without overtly being the case.
Now there are moments when the lines between direct and circumstantial evidence can become blurred depending on the case argued by the defense or the prosecution. Whatever is presented before a judge or jury, these instances are discussed and analyzed during a civil or criminal trial to determine an outcome, one that will be guilty or not guilty.
So how are we supposed to understand these different classifications? Here we will outline examples that are intended to fit one of two camps: direct or circumstantial evidence.
Direct: Witness Testimony
If there is a citizen who can account exactly what happened and who was involved from an unimpeded view, then this could be classified as direct evidence. It will also speak to their credibility and legitimacy as a witness.
Direct: Video or Audio Evidence
If a prosecutor or defender has obtained an email, text message, phone call or other type of audio recording that proves their case, this can be classified as direct evidence.
Direct: Documentary Evidence
Consider a photograph, passport, contract or written document that is signed and dated as direct evidence. Each side of the prosecution and defense will attempt to obtain this form of evidence as it fits the direct category.
Circumstantial: Witness Testimony
Yes, in this instance witness testimony can fit either direct or circumstantial evidence depending on the nature of the testimony. Should an individual on the stand only see a portion of the event of an obstructed view where they might have only heard a scream, a shot or a bang from a distance, then that is not a direct perspective. There is also a degree of credibility and reliability from a witness where their own account could be questioned on both sides of the bench.
Perhaps the defendant’s DNA was on the scene. From a fingerprint to a strand of hair or an item of clothing that might place the individual on location, there are instances when science plays a role that helps to paint a picture. While this will support one of the arguments during a case, it should only work to support further evidence and not entirely be relied upon.