The difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence lies in how each proves a fact in a criminal case. Both types of evidences are admissible under california law and can be used to establish guilt or innocence.
Direct evidence directly proves a fact without requiring any inference. It is straightforward and does not rely on assumptions or deductions. Examples of direct evidence include eyewitness testimony, where a witness states they saw the defendant commit the crime, confessions from the defendant admitting to the crime, and physical evidence such as a video recording capturing the act. Because direct evidence does not require interpretation, it is often considered more straightforward, though its reliability can be questioned if the source, such as eyewitness, is biased or mistaken.
In contrast, circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact by requiring the jury to infer or deduce its connection to the crime. Examples include fingerprints found at a crime scene, which suggest the defendant was present but do not directly prove they committed the crime. Similarly, seeing a suspect flee from a crime scene with a weapon indicates involvement but does not directly show the act committing the crime. DNA evidence is another form of circumstantial evidence often relies on logical reasoning and can sometimes be more reliable than direct evidence, especially when supported by forensic science.
Under california law, both direct and circumstantial evidence are given equal weight, meaning that a person can be convicted solely base on circumstantial evidence, such as questioning the accuracy of eyewitness testimony, or highlighting alternative explanations for circumstantial evidence, such as arguing that fingerprints at a crime scene only prove presence, not involvement in the crime.
