3.2: TYPES OF EVIDENCE

Real Evidence

Dostal (2014) conveyed that real evidence is also known as Physical Evidence. The court will also generally attribute a high probative value to physical exhibits. The court likes physical evidence because they are items the court can see and examine to interpret the facts in issue for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Physical evidence can include just about anything, such as weapons, fingerprints, shoe prints, tire marks, tool impression, hair, fiber, or body fluids. These kinds of physical exhibits of evidence can be examined and analyzed by experts who can provide the court with expert opinions that connect the item of evidence to a person, place, or the criminal event. This allows the court to consider circumstantial connections of the accused to the crime scene or the accused to the victim. For example, in the case where the fingerprints of a suspect are found at a crime scene, and a DNA match of a murder victim’s blood is found on that suspect’s clothing, forensic connections could be made and, in the absence of an explanation, the court would likely find this physical evidence to be relevant and compelling evidence with high probative value (Dostal, 2014).

Direct Evidence

Direct evidence is evidence that is put forward to directly establish a fact which resolves a matter at issue. No inferences of fact need to be drawn to resolve the matter at issue. A firsthand eyewitness testifying to seeing a criminal OFFENSE take place is the most obvious example of direct evidence.

Direct evidence is evidence, if believed, resolves a matter in an issue." It is testimony on "the precise face which is the subject of the issue in trial." Lastly, it is for the trier-of-fact to determine how far the evidence may be believed (Dostal, 2014). An eyewitness who saw the accused shoot a victim would be able to provide direct evidence. Similarly, a security camera showing the accused committing a crime or a statement of confession from the accused admitting to the crime could also be considered direct evidence. Direct evidence should not be confused with the concept of direct examination, which is the initial examination and questioning of a witness at trial by the party who called that witness. And, although each witness who provides evidence could, in theory, be providing direct testimony of their own knowledge and experiences, that evidence is often not direct evidence of the offense itself.

Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence, also called indirect evidence, indirectly proves a fact. Fingerprint evidence is usually circumstantial. A defendant’s fingerprint at the scene of the crime directly proves that the defendant placed a finger at that location. It indirectly proves that because the defendant was present at the scene and placed a finger there, the defendant committed the crime. Common examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint evidence, DNA evidence, and blood evidence. Criminal cases relying on circumstantial evidence are more difficult for the prosecution because circumstantial evidence leaves room for doubt in a judge’s or juror’s mind. However, circumstantial evidence such as DNA evidence can be very reliable and compelling, so the prosecution can and often does meet the burden of proof using only circumstantial evidence (University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing, n.d.)

“When one or more things are proved, from which our experience enables us to ascertain that another, not proved, must have happened, we presume that it did happen, as well in criminal as in civil cases” (MacDonell, 1820).

Circumstantial evidence demonstrates the spatial relationships between suspects, victims, timelines, and the criminal event. These spatial relationships can sometimes demonstrate that an accused person had a combination of intent, motive, opportunity, and/or the means to commit the offense, which are all meaningful features of criminal conduct.

Circumstantial evidence of intent can sometimes be shown through indirect evidence of a suspect planning to commit the offense, and/or planning to escape and dispose of evidence after the offense. A pre-crime statement about the plan could demonstrate both intent and motive, such as, “I really need some money. I’m going to rob that bank tomorrow.”

Circumstantial evidence of conflict, vengeance, financial gain from the commission of the offense can also become evidence of motive.

Circumstantial evidence of opportunity can be illustrated by showing a suspect had access to a victim or a crime scene at the time of the criminal event, and this access provided opportunity to commit the crime.

Circumstantial evidence of means can sometimes be demonstrated by showing the suspect had the physical capabilities and/or the tools or weapons to commit the offense.

Presenting this kind of circumstantial evidence can assist the court in confirming assumptions and inferences to reach conclusions assigning probative value to connections between the accused and a person or a place and the physical evidence. These circumstantial connections can create the essential links between a suspect and the crime (University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing).

There are many ways of making linkages to demonstrate circumstantial connections. These range from forensic analysis of fingerprints or DNA that connect an accused to the crime scene or victim, to witness evidence describing criminal conduct on the part of an accused before, during, or after the offense. The possibilities and variations of when or how circumstantial evidence will emerge are endless. It falls upon the investigator to consider the big picture of all the evidence and then analytically develop theories of how events may have happened. Once a reasonable theory has been formed, evidence of circumstantial connections can be validated through further investigation and analysis of physical exhibits to connect a suspect to the crime.