|
In law, circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. It differs from evidence provided by a witness who directly saw or heard something of an alleged offence; instead it is the circumstances that surround facts that can be used to infer guilt or innocence through reasoning.
An example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of a person around the time of an alleged offense. If someone were charged with theft of money, and were then seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be regarded as circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt.
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against 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."
The recent Scott Peterson trial was based heavily on circumstantial evidence.
The distinction is important because with the obvious exception of the immature, incompetent, or mentally ill, nearly all criminals are careful to not generate direct evidence of an express purpose to commit a criminal act or to show that they understand their actions are of a criminal nature. Therefore, to prove the mens rea levels of "purposely" or "knowingly," the prosecution must usually resort to circumstantial evidence. The same goes for tortfeasors in tort law, if one needs to prove a high level of mens rea to obtain punitive damages.
See also
External lins
Michigan Daily article: http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1997/jun/06-04-97/news/news3.html
| 
