|
What is Circumstantial Evidence?
Circumstantial evidence is the evidence in a crime scene that, with proper information, a person can infer a conclusion about something that happened. This can range in anything from simple criminal activities to murder and other serious crimes. Many times circumstantial evidence is a theory supported by corroborating evidence, that when presented as a whole can create enough evidence to present a case in court. Circumstantial evidence differs from direct evidence as it is inferred from surrounding events that would lead a person to believe a crime has been committed. For example, if a suspect is seen entering a situation with a weapon, and sounds and sights suggest that a person has been harmed, and the suspect leaves the crime scene with evidence such as a used weapon, this is considered circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence would contain a person witnessing a crime where they can give concrete evidence that something happened.
Circumstantial Evidence and Forensics
In criminal cases with severe crimes, such as rape or murder, forensics plays a huge part of circumstantial evidence. The forensics division includes the collection of evidence after a crime is committed. Much of the time it is considered circumstantial evidence because the information is collected and inferred, as opposed to a witness to a crime. Forensic evidence can include all types of information, from DNA to fingerprints, bodily fluids, and blood analysis found at a crime scene. Although forensic evidence is concrete evidence, if the situation surrounding is unclear, the data gathered is still considered circumstantial evidence.
A Common Misconception about Circumstantial Evidence
Many people are under the impression that circumstantial evidence is less reliable or important than direct evidence, but such is not the case. While direct evidence is considered more powerful, the majority of criminal prosecutions base their arguments off of circumstantial evidence, as it is difficult to fabricate and suppress. A handful of famous criminal trials, such as those of Scott Peterson and Timothy McVeigh were based upon circumstantial evidence. In most cases, circumstantial evidence requires a notable and trustworthy source, such as the police officer who found the information, to present the facts. Circumstantial evidence however, can be difficult to present, and if there is any suggestion that the evidence found would find the defendant not guilty for any reason, the prosecuting attorney must disprove the possibility and present it to the court.
|
