Direct Vs Circumstantial Evidence Analysis

Evidence serves as a fundamental foundation of constructing or establishing facts in the United States court system. The evidence that builds these facts are distinguished into two bare bones categories known as direct and circumstantial evidence. While these two types of evidence differ in how they establish evidence, they both share the trait that they are able to establish guilt (Hails 114). From these two categories evidence delves into subcategories such as documentary evidence or witness testimonies that build on the basic definitions of circumstantial and direct evidence. This branching out of categories of evidence allows for cases such as Bernie Madoff V. United States to take place through the use of business records and official

Direct evidence uses “Personal knowledge or observation of the person testifying” to introduce a fact with no inference such as records and direct testimonies of events. Common examples of direct evidence refer to business documents as well as firsthand eyewitness testimonies and are always admitted as long as they weren’t obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights. Meanwhile Circumstantial evidence refers to a set of circumstances that involve the defendant which”...Indirectly proves a fact.” and leads to the jury to inferring the defendant’s guilt or innocence (Hails 114). Examples of circumstantial evidence involve testimony of events that have relevance to the case in question as well as things such as having a very specific skill set that fits very well to the crime in question. Both of these types of evidence have significant differences, but have enough similarities to be seen as equally viable in the eyes of the law and to the

The main similarities between these two types of evidence lies in their end destination. For the jury, both of these types of evidence are seen as equal in consideration and are weighed on an individual introduction basis. The jury also weighs the credibility that both types of evidence present. Another similarity that these two types of evidence have is that they can both be introduced through a witness’s testimony. The jury have a duty to exercise common sense to decide which events are most probable given the conflicting circumstantial and direct evidence. The similarities of Direct and circumstantial evidence highlight the commonalities between the path both types of evidence take to become fact as well as their end destination to the jury’s hands as they weigh evidence (Hails