3 ms·

circumstantial

• tzs 3y ago
  So? Much of the evidence in most criminal trials is circumstantial. For example fingerprints and DNA are circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is evidence that directly links a person to a crime, which for the most part means testimony of a person who claims to have personal knowledge of the crime. Evidence that requires making inferences to get from the evidence to the crime is circumstantial. A good non-criminal example of direct vs. circumstantial evidence would be if you were trying to prove that it snowed last night and you found someone who said that they woke up at 3 AM and looked out a window and saw it snowing. That would direct evidence because you have someone who claims to have personal knowledge that what you are trying to prove happened actually happened. If instead of a witness who actually saw the snowfall you had a person who testified that there was no snow on the ground when they went to bed but when they woke up in the morning there was snow that would be circumstantial evidence. From that testimony you do have direct evidence that there was snow on the ground in the morning, but you have to make inferences if you are trying to prove that snow fell during the night and so that evidence is circumstantial for proving that.