Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of

factlike a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of
an assertion directlyi.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of
circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from
the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An
explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations
have been ruled out.
Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the
inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or
absence of guilt).
Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. For instance, a witness saying that
she saw a defendant stab a victim is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says
that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the
defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for
inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether evidence is
circumstantial.
Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence.
For instance, a forensic scientist may provide results of ballistic tests proving that the defendants
firearm fired the bullets that killed the victim.
Circumstantial evidence is especially important in civil and criminal cases where direct evidence
is lacking.
Circumstantial evidence is used in civil courts to establish or refute liability. It is usually the
most common form of evidence, for example in product liability cases and road traffic accidents.
Forensic analysis of skid marks can frequently allow a reconstruction of the accident. By
measuring the length of such marks and using dynamic analysis of the car and road conditions at
the time of the accident, it may be found that a driver underestimated his or her speed. Forensic
science and forensic engineering are common as much in civil cases as in criminal.

Criminal law[edit]
Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through
reasoning.
With obvious exceptions (immature, incompetent, or mentally ill individuals), most criminals try
to avoid generating direct evidence. Hence the prosecution usually must resort to circumstantial
evidence to prove the mens rea levels of "purposely" or "knowingly." The same goes for
tortfeasors in tort law, if one needs to prove a high level of mens rea to obtain punitive damages.

One example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of a person around the time of an alleged
offense. If someone was charged with theft of money and was then seen in a shopping spree
purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be circumstantial evidence of the
individual's guilt.

Forensic evidence[edit]
Other examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint, blood analysis or DNA analysis of the
evidence found at the scene of a crime. These types of evidence may strongly point to a certain
conclusion when taken into consideration with other factsbut if not directly witnessed by
someone when the crime was committed, they are still considered circumstantial. However,
when proved by expert witnesses, they are usually sufficient to decide a case, especially in the
absence of any direct evidence. Owing to developments in forensic methods, old undecided cases
(or cold cases) are frequently resolved.

Validity of circumstantial evidence[edit]

A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct
evidence.[2][3] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered
more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial
evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of
the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for
example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht
said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [4]
The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on
circumstantial evidence.
Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any casethe "smoking
gun"is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. Similarly, fingerprint evidence,
videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that
support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong
possible evidence.
In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can
come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[5] Eyewitness testimony can be
inaccurate at times,[6] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or
otherwise mistaken testimony.[7] Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable
basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police
officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its
admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving
direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any
eye witness does.
However, there is sometimes more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of
circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his
innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial

evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that
possibility.[8]
Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed
to be true.[1] The conclusion drawn is also called an idiomatic. The laws of valid inference are
studied in the field of logic.
Alternatively, inference may be defined as the non-logical, but rational means, through
observation of patterns of facts, to indirectly see new meanings and contexts for understanding.
Of particular use to this application of inference are anomalies and symbols. Inference, in this
sense, does not draw conclusions but opens new paths for inquiry. (See second set of Examples.)
In this definition of inference, there are two types of inference: inductive inference and deductive
inference. Unlike the definition of inference in the first paragraph above, meaning of word
meanings are not tested but meaningful relationships are articulated.