Circumstantial evidence

Circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.

Compared to direct evidence

If a witness testifies that the defendant was seen entering a house, then screaming was heard, then the defendant was seen leaving, carrying a bloody knife, that is circumstantial evidence; if a witness testifies that he or she actually saw the defendant stabbing the victim, that is direct evidence.

Applications of circumstantial evidence

The two areas of importance are criminal and civil cases where direct evidence is lacking. Forensic evidence is often crucial in establishing the truth of a matter, especially when corroborated by independent tests. Expert evidence is usually needed to prove forensic conclusions.

Criminal Law

Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning.

The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is important because, with the obvious exceptions (the immature, incompetent, or mentally ill), nearly all criminals are careful to not generate direct evidence, and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent. Therefore, to prove the mens rea levels of "purposely" or "knowingly," the prosecution must usually resort to circumstantial evidence. The same goes for tortfeasors in tort law, if one needs to prove a high level of mens rea to obtain punitive damages. In addition, circumstantial evidence—such as fingerprint evidence—is usually the best available evidence to support an inference as to the facts of the case.

One example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of a person around the time of an alleged offense. If someone was charged with theft of money, and was then seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be regarded as circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt.

Forensic evidence

Other examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint, blood analysis or DNA analysis of the evidence found at the scene of a crime. These types of evidence may strongly point to a certain conclusion when taken into consideration with other facts, but if not directly witnessed by someone when the crime was committed, they are still considered to be circumstantial in nature. However, when proved by expert witnesses, they are usually sufficient to decide a case especially in the absence of any direct evidence. Owing to the development in forensic methods, old undecided cases (or cold cases) are frequently resolved.

A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. In fact many successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence". The 2005 murder trial of Scott Peterson trial was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is in fact an example of proof-based on circumstantial evidence. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered the strongest possible evidence.

In practice, circumstantial evidence has an advantage over direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate at times, and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony. Good strong circumstantial evidence can be a far more reliable basis on which to make a determination of guilt. It should be noted that circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.

However, there is sometimes more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility.

Civil law

Circumstantial evidence is also used in civil courts to establish or deny liability. It is usually the most common form of evidence, especially in product liability cases, and road traffic accidents for example. Forensic analysis of skid marks can frequently allow a reconstruction of the accident to be made. By measuring the length of such marks and using dynamic analysis of the car and road conditions at the time of the accident, it is usually found that drivers under-estimate the speed at which they were travelling. Forensic science and forensic engineering are both common methods used in civil cases, just as much as in criminal cases.

Books, movies, and television

Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence"(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials.




How to Update Wiki

The Law Wiki is still very new and so it's a great time to jump in and start updating it and learning how to use it. You really can't mess anything up, because all revisions are stored and can be rolled back by a moderator, so play away and you can help make this a great resource for WORLDLawDirect visitors.

Circumstantial Evidence Arises That Air France Jet Was Brought Down By A Bomb ???

Experts have already voiced the opinion that it is not possible for the Air France jet to have been brought down by atmospheric conditions. This sets up the possibilities of either some gross and extraordinarily unusual mechanical failure, or a missile or bomb. And now this, just in…

Associated Press:

Just days before the mysterious crash of Air France Flight 447 in the Atlantic Ocean, Argentinean authorities reportedly delayed a similar Air France flight from Buenos Aires to Paris after the airline received a bomb threat over the phone. Police and officials at Buenos Aires’ Ezeiza Airport spent 90 minutes inspecting the threatened plane for explosives on the evening of May 27, but found nothing, according to a Brazilian news report.

Source:
Pat Dollard | Young Americans | Blog Archive Updated: Circumstantial Evidence Arises That Air France Jet Was Brought Down By A Bomb - Video Added


..... sorry i don't believe a bomb brought this plane down, more likely pilot error, plane malfunction, or external sources ie water spouts lightning, nothing more