Circumstantial evidence is one of two types of evidence presented during a criminal court trial. Direct evidence is any evidence that directly links the defendant to the crime committed, while circumstantial evidence indirectly helps to establish the guilt or innocence of a defendant through logic.
Although both direct and circumstantial evidence are necessary throughout the course of a criminal trial, direct evidence weighs more heavily on the burden of proof where the jury is concerned, even though direct and circumstantial evidence are seen equally through the eyes of the law. Circumstantial evidence provides a basis for the prosecution (or for the defense), but will not solidify guilt or innocence either way.
Examples of direct evidence might include fingerprints, DNA, property of the defendant found at the crime scene, video or tape recordings and eyewitness statements. Unfortunately, however, many criminals are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to avoid leaving direct evidence of their crimes. That is where circumstantial evidence comes into play.
Although direct evidence is usually required to obtain an arrest or search warrant, circumstantial evidence presented at trial is considered as thoroughly as direct evidence. The jury is asked to look at the facts and to make a logical inference based on what they know.
There are two main situations in which circumstantial evidence will not be admissible during criminal court proceedings. The first is an instance in which circumstantial evidence is delivered as hearsay from one person to another. Generally speaking, one witness cannot testify to what he or she heard someone else say. The second instance involves unlawfully obtained evidence, which usually refers to evidence collected by law enforcement without a warrant. It might also involve spousal privilege; spouses cannot testify to anything that might implicate their significant other in a crime.
Circumstantial evidence plays a large role in most criminal cases. It is up to the litigants to effectively present such evidence in a way that plays out logically for the judge or jury. It really doesn’t matter whether or not the evidence is believable unless a legal professional can successfully convince the deciding party.
The most effective type of circumstantial evidence is that which either lays a framework for the defense or prosecution or that which supports direct evidence already presented to the jury. Direct evidence by itself is often not enough to create (or destroy) reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence can pick up the slack.
For example, let’s talk about a murder case. Perhaps the medical examiner found the defendant’s DNA at the murder scene, which is direct evidence linking the defendant to the victim. That might seem rather self explanatory, but if the defendant and the victim were having an affair, one would expect to find the defendant’s DNA. However, if the doorman for the victim’s residence testifies that the defendant was the only one to enter or leave the building, that circumstantial evidence will solidify the prosecution’s case.
Another example of circumstantial evidence is the perceived behavior of an individual. For example, if you are walking down the street and you see a woman sitting on a park bench crying, you would probably infer that she was sad. Although there are other possibilities for her tears, logic would deduce that she was sad. And although witnesses cannot testify to hearsay, they can give their own impressions of behaviors and actions of other people.
Many of the most high profile cases in U.S. history have been based on circumstantial evidence. For example, the trials of Timothy McVeigh (OKC bombing), Scott Peterson (murder of his wife), Charles Manson (murder of Sharon Tate) and others.
