Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 239 views

    Circumstantial Evidence - Law

    Uploaded by

    n73686861
    Circumstantial evidence relies on inference to connect evidence to a conclusion, whereas direct evidence directly supports a conclusion without needing additional evidence or inference. On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for multiple explanations, but when different pieces are considered together they can strongly support one inference over others by ruling out alternative explanations. Both direct testimony and forensic evidence like fingerprints or DNA can be considered circumstantial evidence if they require an inference rather than directly witnessing an event. While circumstantial evidence is sometimes considered less valid than direct evidence, many prosecutions rely entirely on circumstantial evidence, and it can have advantages over direct evidence by coming from multiple corroborating sources.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Circumstantial Evidence - Law

    Uploaded by

    n73686861
    239 views3 pages
    Circumstantial evidence relies on inference to connect evidence to a conclusion, whereas direct evidence directly supports a conclusion without needing additional evidence or inference. On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for multiple explanations, but when different pieces are considered together they can strongly support one inference over others by ruling out alternative explanations. Both direct testimony and forensic evidence like fingerprints or DNA can be considered circumstantial evidence if they require an inference rather than directly witnessing an event. While circumstantial evidence is sometimes considered less valid than direct evidence, many prosecutions rely entirely on circumstantial evidence, and it can have advantages over direct evidence by coming from multiple corroborating sources.

    Original Description:

    Circumstantial evidence Definition

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Circumstantial evidence relies on inference to connect evidence to a conclusion, whereas direct evidence directly supports a conclusion without needing additional evidence or inference. On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for multiple explanations, but when different pieces are considered together they can strongly support one inference over others by ruling out alternative explanations. Both direct testimony and forensic evidence like fingerprints or DNA can be considered circumstantial evidence if they require an inference rather than directly witnessing an event. While circumstantial evidence is sometimes considered less valid than direct evidence, many prosecutions rely entirely on circumstantial evidence, and it can have advantages over direct evidence by coming from multiple corroborating sources.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    239 views3 pages

    Circumstantial Evidence - Law

    Uploaded by

    n73686861
    Circumstantial evidence relies on inference to connect evidence to a conclusion, whereas direct evidence directly supports a conclusion without needing additional evidence or inference. On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for multiple explanations, but when different pieces are considered together they can strongly support one inference over others by ruling out alternative explanations. Both direct testimony and forensic evidence like fingerprints or DNA can be considered circumstantial evidence if they require an inference rather than directly witnessing an event. While circumstantial evidence is sometimes considered less valid than direct evidence, many prosecutions rely entirely on circumstantial evidence, and it can have advantages over direct evidence by coming from multiple corroborating sources.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of

    factlike a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of
    an assertion directlyi.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
    On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of
    circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from
    the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An
    explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations
    have been ruled out.
    Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the
    inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or
    absence of guilt).
    Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. For instance, a witness saying that
    she saw a defendant stab a victim is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says
    that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the
    defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for
    inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether evidence is
    circumstantial.
    Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence.
    For instance, a forensic scientist may provide results of ballistic tests proving that the defendants
    firearm fired the bullets that killed the victim.
    Circumstantial evidence is especially important in civil and criminal cases where direct evidence
    is lacking.
    Circumstantial evidence is used in civil courts to establish or refute liability. It is usually the
    most common form of evidence, for example in product liability cases and road traffic accidents.
    Forensic analysis of skid marks can frequently allow a reconstruction of the accident. By
    measuring the length of such marks and using dynamic analysis of the car and road conditions at
    the time of the accident, it may be found that a driver underestimated his or her speed. Forensic
    science and forensic engineering are common as much in civil cases as in criminal.

    Criminal law[edit]
    Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through
    reasoning.
    With obvious exceptions (immature, incompetent, or mentally ill individuals), most criminals try
    to avoid generating direct evidence. Hence the prosecution usually must resort to circumstantial
    evidence to prove the mens rea levels of "purposely" or "knowingly." The same goes for
    tortfeasors in tort law, if one needs to prove a high level of mens rea to obtain punitive damages.

    One example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of a person around the time of an alleged
    offense. If someone was charged with theft of money and was then seen in a shopping spree
    purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be circumstantial evidence of the
    individual's guilt.

    Forensic evidence[edit]
    Other examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint, blood analysis or DNA analysis of the
    evidence found at the scene of a crime. These types of evidence may strongly point to a certain
    conclusion when taken into consideration with other factsbut if not directly witnessed by
    someone when the crime was committed, they are still considered circumstantial. However,
    when proved by expert witnesses, they are usually sufficient to decide a case, especially in the
    absence of any direct evidence. Owing to developments in forensic methods, old undecided cases
    (or cold cases) are frequently resolved.

    Validity of circumstantial evidence[edit]


    A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct
    evidence.[2][3] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered
    more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial
    evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of
    the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for
    example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht
    said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [4]
    The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on
    circumstantial evidence.
    Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any casethe "smoking
    gun"is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. Similarly, fingerprint evidence,
    videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that
    support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong
    possible evidence.
    In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can
    come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[5] Eyewitness testimony can be
    inaccurate at times,[6] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or
    otherwise mistaken testimony.[7] Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable
    basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police
    officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its
    admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving
    direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any
    eye witness does.
    However, there is sometimes more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of
    circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his
    innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial

    evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that
    possibility.[8]
    Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed
    to be true.[1] The conclusion drawn is also called an idiomatic. The laws of valid inference are
    studied in the field of logic.
    Alternatively, inference may be defined as the non-logical, but rational means, through
    observation of patterns of facts, to indirectly see new meanings and contexts for understanding.
    Of particular use to this application of inference are anomalies and symbols. Inference, in this
    sense, does not draw conclusions but opens new paths for inquiry. (See second set of Examples.)
    In this definition of inference, there are two types of inference: inductive inference and deductive
    inference. Unlike the definition of inference in the first paragraph above, meaning of word
    meanings are not tested but meaningful relationships are articulated.

    You might also like