All juries and courts of law require some amount of evidence to be presented to them during court proceedings. The evidence may be direct, real or circumstantial. All kinds of evidence carry the same importance in a court of law – though some might prove more compelling than others.
Table of Contents
Direct evidence means any proof that serves as strong proof on its own, without any inference by the legal authorities. It is usually a stand-alone piece of evidence that directly links the subject to the case at hand. It tends to show, without any reasonable doubt, the existence of the fact in question. Unlike circumstantial evidence, direct evidence is free of doubts and assumptions on its own.
Circumstantial Evidence, also known as indirect evidence, is a collection of facts that need to be analyzed to link them to the case at hand. Unlike direct evidence, they do not serve as independent pieces of evidence, but instead, need a well-built argument to gain weight in a court of law. The lawyer may use a variety of circumstantial pieces of evidence to infer sufficient proof for his or her case. For example, footprints leading to a scene of a crime or the pattern of injuries to the victim is considered as circumstantial evidence.
Real evidence also known as physical or material evidence, is any tangible object that may be submitted as proof to a court of law. This may include a photograph, an audio or video recording, a potential murder weapon, a get-away vehicle, a forged document etc. It differs from direct evidence in that most times, the link to the alleged subject of the piece of evidence has to be established during court proceedings. Also, real evidence has to be material, unlike direct evidence which may take the form of an eye-witness account and need not necessarily be material.
Real evidence may constitute direct or circumstantial evidence, depending on the type of evidence involved.
A court may admit certain types of testimonies and objects as direct evidence. Some of these are listed below.
In addition to these, any other material or testimony that has sufficient individual value and does not need to be considered alongside other case facts can constitute as a piece of direct evidence.
Certain types of testimonies and material evidence fall under the category of circumstantial evidence. It must be kept in mind that circumstantial evidence is not factual and needs further supporting arguments and proofs to make a case.
Almost all cases use a combination of direct or circumstantial evidence. In every case, what matters more than the evidence provided is the presentation of the evidence. This means building your case on all available proof in such a way that it corroborates your client’s story. Most lawyers try to find loopholes and inconsistencies in the evidence, testimonies, witnesses and the investigative authorities. For example, presenting proof of racism against a coloured defendant by the police will show prejudice in the investigation and cast doubt in the mind of the jury.
No single court case can be dubbed as a direct evidence case as crime usually takes place in a hidden, secluded manner. Direct evidence is strengthened by circumstantial evidence and a logically worded argument.
Hence, as an attorney, it is crucial to present and connect all evidence in such a way as to prove without a doubt that your client is innocent. The authority of the proof must also be established before or as the proof is presented in court. If you can do that, you have a better chance of securing the win than your opponent.
