What is direct evidence and examples?

When a defendant is charged with a felony or misdemeanor offense, the People must be able to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict him or her. The prosecution is obligated to divulge all relevant discovery material in advance, including the evidence they intend to bring against the defendant. Evidence can either be direct or circumstantial. It is important to understand the distinction between these two types of evidence as there are often many myths and misconceptions surrounding what type of evidence can be used at trial.

Direct evidence is evidence that, if believed, directly proves a fact. Usually, in criminal cases direct evidence will be eyewitness testimony regarding something that was actually observed. Circumstantial evidence, which is also called indirect evidence, does not directly prove that the defendant is guilty of an offense, however it is evidence of another fact that could lead to the conclusion or inference that the defendant is guilty.

For example, in a battery case the prosecutor may present direct and circumstantial evidence of the crime. If the victim or an eyewitness testifies that the defendant unlawfully struck him or her, this would be considered direct evidence of battery. The prosecution may also present photographic evidence of the victim’s injuries. This evidence would be considered circumstantial evidence, because they jury would have to “connect the dots” in order to conclude that the defendant caused the injuries and thus is guilty of a battery offense.

There is a common misconception that circumstantial evidence cannot be used to convict a defendant of a crime. There is no evidence rule that prohibits a prosecutor from introducing circumstantial evidence or even from solely relying on circumstantial evidence when presenting a case against a defendant. In fact, there may be situations where circumstantial evidence is stronger than direct evidence, especially when the person testifying about what they directly witnessed is unreliable or has been shown to be untrustworthy.

In many cases, the prosecutor must rely on circumstantial evidence in order to prove a necessary element of the crime charged. Many offenses require that the prosecutor prove intent. For example, murder charges require a showing that the killing was committed intentionally with “malice aforethought.” In addition, burglary requires the People to prove that when a defendant gained entry into a building or residence, he or she intended to commit a crime.

When a person is caught shoplifting, the prosecutor may only be able to prove petty theft, which is a misdemeanor level offense. However, if the prosecutor can show that the defendant intended to steal when he or she entered the store, the defendant can be charged with burglary. To prove this charge, the prosecution would almost always rely on circumstantial evidence, such as the fact that the defendant did not enter the store with his wallet or any cash, which would show that the defendant intended to steal and not shop when he entered the business. In these cases, the only direct evidence may be the defendant’s own confession that he intended to commit a theft when he entered. Because this type of direct evidence is rarely available, a prosecutor would therefore need to have good circumstantial evidence to show intent.

There are limitations to how circumstantial evidence can be used. A prosecutor must still prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Before a jury can convict someone solely based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecutor must convince the jury that the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence is that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This can be a difficult, especially in situations where the circumstantial evidence may point to other possibilities or reasonable explanations. Having a knowledgeable and experienced criminal defense attorney can be crucial when the prosecution is attempting to prove a case solely on circumstantial evidence.

If you have been accused of a felony or misdemeanor offense or are currently under investigation, it is critical that you meet with a Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer as soon as possible. As a former Deputy District Attorney with over 14 years of prosecutorial experience, Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Kraut is highly respected as a highly effective litigator who how to effectively challenge both direct and circumstantial evidence.

For more information about Los Angeles direct and circumstantial evidence, contact Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Kraut at the Kraut Law Group located at 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1520, Los Angeles, CA 90028. Mr. Kraut can be reached 24/7 at 888-334-6344 or 323-464-6453.

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Direct evidence" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference.[1] A witness relates what they directly experienced, usually by sight or hearing, but also possibly through any sense including smell, touch or pain.[2] Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, consists of a fact or set of facts which, if proven, will support the creation of an inference that the matter asserted is true.[3]

For example, a witness who testifies that they saw the defendant shoot a victim gives direct evidence. A witness who testifies that they saw the defendant fleeing the scene of the crime, or a forensics expert who says that ballistics proves that the defendant's gun shot the bullet that killed the victim, both give circumstantial evidence from which the defendant's guilt may be inferred.

See also

• Hearsay
• In flagrante delicto
• Smoking gun
• Digital evidence

References

1. ^ Jonathan Law, Elizabeth A. Martin (2009). A Dictionary of Law. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 20 September 2010.
2. ^ State v. Famber, 214 S.W.2d 40 (Mo. 1947).
3. ^ Lehman, Jeffrey; Phelps, Shirelle (2005). West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Vol. 2 (2 ed.). Detroit: Thomson/Gale. p. 382. ISBN 9780787663742.

This legal term article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

• v
• t
• e

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Direct_evidence&oldid=1104282693"

One aspect of criminal prosecutions that can often cause confusion is the different types of evidence that can be used to show a person’s guilt. During a Wisconsin criminal case, it is important to understand the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. 

Direct Evidence

Evidence that clearly demonstrates a defendant committed a crime is known as direct evidence. Factual evidence that incontrovertibly shows a person committed the alleged offense may be used to meet the standards for proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Examples of direct evidence include:

• Security camera footage showing a person breaking into a store and stealing items;
• An audio recording of a person admitting to committing a crime;
• Ballistics tests that show a bullet was fired by a specific firearm;
• Eyewitness testimony that a person saw the defendant commit a crime;
• The defendant’s fingerprints on a weapon used to commit murder; and
• Computer records showing a person illegally used someone else’s credit card.

Circumstantial Evidence

In many cases, direct evidence of a crime does not exist and prosecutors must use evidence that implies the defendant committed the alleged offense. This is known as circumstantial evidence, and examples of this type of evidence include:

• Eyewitness testimony that a person was seen fleeing from the scene of a crime;
• A person’s fingerprints found at the scene of the crime alongside other people’s fingerprints;
• An audio recording of the defendant stating his or her intent to commit a crime before the alleged crime actually occurred;
• Harassing emails or text messages a defendant sent to a person who was later assaulted; and
• A person’s browser history showing how he or she searched for information about the tools used to commit the crime of which he or she is accused.

While a single piece of circumstantial evidence may not be enough to demonstrate a person’s guilt, multiple pieces of evidence may be used together, and the prosecutor may ask the jury to “connect the dots” to determine that the defendant committed the alleged offense.

Contact a Milwaukee Criminal Defense Attorney 

When you are facing criminal charges, it is important to understand the evidence that could be used by the prosecution to demonstrate your guilt. To secure a conviction, prosecutors must convince a jury that you committed the alleged offense beyond all reasonable doubt. 

At Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown LLP our skilled attorneys can help you understand your options for defense, including finding gaps or inconsistencies in the evidence or showing that the prosecution has not met the reasonable doubt standard. To schedule a consultation with a Milwaukee, WI criminal defense lawyer, call our office at 414-271-1440.

Sources:

https://legaldictionary.net/circumstantial-evidence/

http://wilawlibrary.gov/topics/justice/evidence.php

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/circumstantial+evidence