Circumstantial evidence
Circumstantial evidence refers to evidence that does not directly prove a defendant's involvement in a crime but instead relies on inference to connect them to the crime. It is often seen as weaker than direct evidence, such as fingerprints or eyewitness testimony, which can more clearly link a suspect to criminal activity. While circumstantial evidence alone may not be substantial enough to secure a conviction, it is frequently used in legal cases, often in combination with direct evidence. In scenarios where direct evidence is scarce, circumstantial evidence can become a crucial component of the case, albeit with a higher likelihood of resulting in reasonable doubt among jurors. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys may rely on circumstantial evidence, especially when direct evidence is limited. Understanding the implications of circumstantial evidence is essential in the legal field, as it influences the strategies employed by both sides in seeking just outcomes in criminal cases.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Circumstantial evidence
SIGNIFICANCE: Circumstantial evidence is weak material on which to build legal cases, but it is often the only evidence with which both prosecutors and defense attorneys have to work. Most criminal cases, however, are built on combinations of direct and circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is, by its nature, less strong than direct evidence. Characteristics of crimes such as fingerprints and eyewitness testimony constitute direct evidence because they can directly link defendants to the crimes with which they are charged. In cases built on direct evidence, prosecutors find it easier to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused are guilty.
By contrast, circumstantial evidence does not link defendants to the crimes, leaving judges and jurors to infer what the facts are. Circumstantial evidence is usually based on combinations of facts and circumstances, no one of which necessarily points toward a given suspect, but which together cast suspicion on one or more suspects. In cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, there is less likelihood that juries will reach guilty verdicts because they are left with reasonable doubt. Prosecutors therefore try to build cases primarily upon direct evidence. Even defense attorneys try to build their cases on direct evidence for the same reason—to remove reasonable doubts.
Cases based entirely upon circumstantial evidence are very common in the legal system and, in many cases, circumstantial evidence may be the only evidence available. Often attorneys on both sides of cases use eyewitness testimony as their primary direct evidence because the only other evidence available to them is circumstantial. By using both types of evidence, both defense attorneys and prosecutors hope to get to the truth of the cases and win favorable verdicts.
Bibliography
Meyer, J. F., and D. R. Grant. The Courts in Our Criminal Justice System. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 2003.
Rabe, Gary A., and Dean John Champion. Criminal Courts: Structure, Process and Issues. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 2002.
Skogan, Wesley G., and Kathleen Frydl, eds. Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2003.
“Understanding Circumstantial Evidence.” Shane Phelps Law, 2 May 2024, www.shanephelpslaw.com/the-atticus-files/2024/05/understanding-circumstantial-evidence/. Accessed 24 June 2024.