Delia Regalado
Mr. Barrera
ADJ-1
4 November 2017
Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence There are two types of evidence used in a trial. The two of them being direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is evidence that “directly proves a fact” (shestokas). Circumstantial evidence is evidence that “allows a fact to be inferred” (shestokas). They are both very different to each other, but it is best to use them together. This way, both types of evidence will be able to back each other up when they are presented.
Direct evidence is usually known as an eyewitness testimony, but direct evidence can also be videos, audio recording, and videos (shestokas). Direct evidence is exactly what the name suggests; direct and straight
…show more content…
Circumstantial evidence just “strongly suggests something” (‘Circumstantial Evidence’). The judge or jury will then take this evidence, and infer how the crime was committed and by who. Circumstantial evidence can be many things. It could be something that was seen, smelt, heard, tasted or even touched. As long as they “create a picture” of the crime that was committed (‘Circumstantial …show more content…
The direct evidence is pretty convincing itself, but with the help of the circumstantial evidence, prosecutors will be able to show who committed the crime and how. They will use circumstantial evidence to play out how the crime happened, and also back up the direct evidence that is presented. There is no evidence better than the other because they are both needed to back each other up. Both direct and circumstantial evidence working together will play a key role in whether the judge and/or jury believe what is being said.
Work Cited
“Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence: Observation vs. Inference.” David J. Shestokas, www.shestokas.com/general-law/direct-vs-circumstantial-evidence-observation-vs-inference/.
“Circumstantial vs Direct Evidence.” Criminal Law Consulting
For Writers & Filmmakers, www.criminallawconsulting.com/circumstantial-vs-direct-evidence.html.
“Circumstantial Evidence - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes.” Legal Dictionary, 3 Sept. 2015, legaldictionary.net/circumstantial-evidence/.
“What is circumstantial evidence? What is direct evidence?” Rottenstein Law Group LLP, www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-circumstantial-evidence-what-is-direct-evidence/.
McKenna, Brittany. “Direct Evidence: Definition, Law & Examples.” Study.com, Study.com,
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
this case I believe that there is more evidence to support the view that the
· This would be the second case to be tried in civil court for a murder with no weapons just circumstantial evidence.
Evidence analysis and ranging is the most crucial stage of investigation. The success of the case exposure lies in the gradual evidence research and collecting prior to the laboratory analysis. The CSI systematically makes his way through the crime scene collects all potential evidence, tagging, logging and packaging so it remains intact on its way to the lab. Depending on the task breakdown of the CSI unit he may or may not analyze the evidence in the lab.
Gardner, T. J., & Anderson, T. M. (2013). Criminal evidence: Principles and cases (8th ed.).
Testimonial evidence is oral or written assertion offered in a court as proof of the truth of what is being stated. It includes testimony and hearsay evidence. This is typically known for being one of the most popular types of evidence. It’s normally what you would see in movies or on TV shows, such as law & order. An example of this would be when a witness is called to the witness stand under oath and they speak to a jury, about what they know in regards to the facts of a case.
In addition, the defendant’s erratic behavior that raised suspicion could also be used to prove the burden of proof. The fact that the defendant indicated that his wife was deceased, while she was still alive, can demonstrate that the murder was planned. Moreover, the defendant’s strategic travel to San Diego after Laci’s Peterson body and fetus were discovered and the change in the defendant’s physical appearance can be used to allude to the proof of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt. Also, the items removed from the defendant’s car during the traffic stop, specifically the thousands of dollars in cash, can indicate that the defendant planned to flee the country at some point during his trip to San Diego. Lastly, the chain of events that took place during the period of the victim’s disappearance and the discovery of her body, and the defendant’s secret lover becoming a key witness, was used to strengthen the circumstantial evidence.
In the court of law, eyewitnesses are expected to present evidence based upon information they acquired visually. However, due to memory processing, presenting this information accurately is not always possible. This paper will discuss the reliability of eyewitness testimony, its use in a relevant court case, and how the reasonable person standard relates to eyewitness testimony.
A witness is someone who has firsthand knowledge about a crime through their senses and can certify to its happening and someone who has seen an event at firsthand is known as an eyewitness.
Evidence essentially comes in two forms: verbal or physical. For instance, verbal evidence could be spoken evidence acquired from a wiretap. Physical evidence could include DNA, blood, or bodily samples. Another reliable origin evidence is digital documentation. “As technology has become more portable and powerful, greater amounts of information are created, stored, and accessed” (GEDJ). Over the past few decades, technology has advanced to extreme levels! The most common technology used to find digital evidence are cell phones, computers, tablets, external storage devices, GPS locators, and various other devices (GEDJ). Text messages, social media posts, pictures, etc. are becoming more common data in investigations of the modern era. “Digital evidence can come from both suspects and victims, as all involved parties may have their own personal devices that are relevant to the investigation” (GEDJ). If they are available, computers, phones, social media and much more are very useful sources of gathering data for a criminal case. For instance, both the suspect and the victim may have text messages on their cell phones that could add to the search. “In some criminal cases, digital evidence can be useful if the suspect had associated with it. In some cases it can lead you in the wrong direction or to the wrong people. Or it could simply be useless if the suspect didn 't use anything
With all these possible flaws in the testimony of witnesses and victims why do they continue to use them as primary evidence in criminal cases? The answer is simple; until recently there was no other way to prove whether or not a person was actually at the scene of a crime unless someone saw them or they left some finger prints behind that the police were able to link back to someone, which may have not been left on the victim but in the general vicinity. Until recently, with the recent breakthrough in DNA testing which allows police and investigators to gain an exact match as to who committed the crime.
In the opening statements both side of the case make opening statements to lay the foundation of their cases. Opening statements are not allowed to be argumentative and cannot be considered evidence by the jury; they are the road maps laying out where each side intends to take its case. First the prosecution presented its case. They alleged Peterson killed his wife in their Modesto home because he was having an affair, then drove her body nearly 100 miles to San Francisco Bay and heaved it overboard from his small boat. Prosecution offered a steady drum beat of small bits of circumstantial evidence. From the Russian poetry Peterson read his mistress to the fishing gear in his alibi to the dessert featured on a particular episode of Martha Stewart Living, it added up to Peterson's guilt, they suggested. The defense countered that Modesto authorities unfairly targeted Peterson, ignoring important leads that didn't fit their theory. Defense said that, while prosecutors had only assembled a circumstantial case, they had five witnesses that were direct evidence of Peterson's innocence.
Judges make rulings on what evidence may or may not be admitted over the course of a trial and technology impacts the way police collect and process evidence, this is true today as well as during the 1892 trial of Lizzie Borden. The rudimentary practice of evidence collection and processing by police was a critical factor in the acquittal of Lizzie Borden. Fingerprinting had not been introduced into the court system and the absence of an eyewitness left the prosecution with little to work with, this left the prosecution only circumstantial evidence but most if not all of it pointed at the defendant. The Borden home was absent of any signs of forced entry and the traditional signs of a struggle couldn’t be located during the police examination but several gruesome facts indicated Lizzie Borden may have been innocent. Medical evidence as to the method used in the killings pointed toward a “tall man” being the culprit, specifically the nineteen wounds inflicted on Abby Borden were said to have been from a dull edge of an axe.
Gardner, T. J., & Anderson, T. M. (2013). Criminal evidence: Principles and Cases (8th ed.).
The hearsay rule is a rule that applies in court when a statement is made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted (legal-dictionary.com n.d.). Unfortunately, when this evidence is brought to court it is up to the judge and jury to determine whether the evidence offered as proof is credible. Therefore, the person that is testifying has to prove to the judge and jury that they in fact saw what happen or that they actually know what happen. Furthermore, they have to swear and affirm that their statement is the truth. Therefore, there are three major evidentiary rules to help the judge or jury make their determination. The three rules are before a witness is allowed to testify, they must generally swear or affirm that their testimony will be truthful, they must be personally presented at the trial or proceeding in order for the judge or jury to be allowed to observe the testimony firsthand and finally they are subject to cross-examination at the option of any party who did not call the witness to testify.