Circumstantial Evidence versus Direct Evidence Used to Get a Conviction

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to enlighten and explore the two types of evidence. The core objective of this paper is to differentiate and contrast direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. The paper also describes the importance of evidence in the court of law. In addition, the paper focuses to enlighten the significance of the two types of evidences in the court of law. The paper discusses the influence of direct and circumstantial evidence on culpable and the case presented in the court; nonetheless, the paper also discusses the preference of judge to the evidences on the basis of their significance.

Table of Contents

Introduction4

The Significance of Evidence in the Court of Law5

Circumstantial Evidence6

Direct Evidence8

Conclusion11

References13

Appendix14

Outline14

Circumstantial Evidence versus Direct Evidence Used to Get a Conviction

Introduction

Evidence is anything that is offered to a court to demonstrate the truth of facts that are in dispute in a case. Evidence can be presented through the testimony of witnesses and though documents, exhibits and other physical objects. However, not every piece of evidence will be admitted for consideration by the jury or the judge sitting as factfinder. In the United States, courts apply rules to determine whether evidence is relevant and reliable. These rules of evidence were first developed in England through the common law. Since 1975, the federal courts have used the Federal Rules of Evidence, a codification of common law rules. State courts have adopted and modified the federal rules for use in civil and criminal trial proceedings. Appellate courts also use these rules to assess whether the trial judge acted correctly in admitting or banning the admission of evidence. Though some rules of evidence are straightforward, others are very technical and have numerous exceptions.

Until the twentieth century, the main issue driving the admission of evidence was relevancy. For example, in criminal cases the trial court did not concern itself whether the police violated the Fourth Amendment when they seized incriminating physical evidence. As long as the evidence was relevant to the criminal proceedings, the judge would admit it. By the 1960s constitutional issues played a part in the admission of evidence. Today a criminal defendant who believes police violated the Fourth, Fifth or Sixth Amendment may challenge the admission of evidence that was collected because of the alleged violation. A court will conduct a suppression hearing to assess the claims. If it finds that the police violated the law, the evidence will be suppressed, making it inadmissible at trial even if it is relevant. Often the suppression will lead to the dismissal of the charge because this evidence was crucial to the prosecution. Assuming the police have not violated a defendant's constitutional rights, the evidence will be admitted if it is relevant. Rule 402 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is a broad policy statement, declaring in part that “All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided.” Therefore, relevant evidence can only be excluded if the court believes it falls within one of a ...