CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact like
a ‘fingerprint’ at the scene of a offence/crime.
By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion
directly i.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 on another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely
once alternative explanations may have been ruled out.
Circumstantial evidence allows a Trier to infer that a fact exists.
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 defendant’s
firearm fired the bullets that killed the victim.
Circumstantial
evidence is especially important in civil and criminal cases where direct
evidence is lacking.
