What is the key difference between direct and circumstantial evidence?

The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence lies primarily in how each type of evidence supports a conclusion. Circumstantial evidence provides information that, while not directly proving a fact, allows for the inference of a conclusion. It relies on the surrounding circumstances to suggest a possible link to the event or matter in question, thus allowing a conclusion to be drawn from it.

For example, if a person is seen running away from a crime scene, and there is a broken window at the crime scene, that circumstantial evidence may imply that the person may have been involved in the breaking and entering, even though there is no direct evidence such as eyewitness testimony showing them committing the act.

Direct evidence, on the other hand, directly supports the truth of an assertion, such as eyewitness testimony or a video recording of the event, which can conclusively demonstrate what happened without the need for inference.

Understanding this key distinction helps clarify the role of different types of evidence in legal proceedings and their implications for establishing facts in a case.