Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are two types of evidence that can be used to prove
facts in a case:
Direct evidence: A witness testifies about something they personally saw, heard, or felt. For
example, an eyewitness who saw a murder take place.
Circumstantial evidence: A chain of circumstances that point to the existence of a fact. For
example, a friend testifying that they saw someone wearing a jacket similar to the one a
prosecutor believes was stolen.
Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable proof of facts. A party can prove a fact
using only circumstantial evidence, only direct evidence, or a combination of both. When
deciding on a verdict, all evidence should be considered.
Here are some things to keep in mind when evaluating circumstantial evidence:
Inferences from circumstantial evidence should be based on reason, experience, and
common sense.
Inferences should not be based on guesswork, speculation, or conjecture.
To convict based on circumstantial evidence, guilt must be the only rational inference that
can be drawn from the circumstances.
There must be no reasonable possibility consistent with innocence.
The main difference between witness testimony and expert testimony is that witnesses provide
first-hand accounts of events, while expert witnesses offer specialized opinions based on their
expertise:
Witness testimony: Witnesses provide a factual account of what they observed or heard
without offering opinions. For example, a pedestrian who saw a car accident or a
passenger who experienced it could be a fact witness.
Expert testimony Expert witnesses offer specialized opinions and analyses based on
their expertise, even if they have no direct observation of the case's events. Expert
witnesses are required to have specialized knowledge, education, training, or experience
in a certain field. Their testimonies are often critical in cases involving complex issues.
Expert testimony is subject to different rules and requirements than fact witness testimony
because an expert's opinion often extends beyond personal observation.
The law of evidence is part of the adjective law, also known as procedural law. Adjective
law is the body of rules that govern how to enforce substantive law, which defines rights
and duties. It is different from substantive law, which deals with the rights and duties of
people under the law. The law of evidence is part of the adjective law because it dictates
what evidence can be presented in a trial and how it can be presented
