Editing Circumstantial evidence (section)

==Overview==
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each [[corroborating evidence|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.<ref>Transnational principle used in international commercial arbitration: [http://www.trans-lex.org/968000 Trans-Lex.org]</ref> In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

[[Reasonable doubt]] is tied into circumstantial evidence as that evidence relies on inference. It was put in place because the circumstantial evidence may not be enough to convict someone fairly. Reasonable doubt is described as the highest standard of proof used in court and means that a juror can find the defendant guilty of the crime to a moral certainty. Even when circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to convict or acquit, it can contribute to other decisions made about the case.{{citation needed|date=August 2022}}

[[Testimony]] can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. For example, a [[witness]] saying that she saw a [[defendant]] stab a [[crime victim|victim]] is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness saying that she saw a defendant enter a house, heard screaming, and saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife is circumstantial evidence. It is the need for inference, and not the obviousness of the fact inferred, that determines whether evidence is circumstantial.

[[Forensic evidence]] supplied by an [[expert witness]] is usually treated as circumstantial evidence. For example, a [[forensic scientist]] or [[forensic engineer]] may provide results of tests indicating that bullets were fired from a defendant's gun, or that a car was traveling over the speed limit, but not necessarily that the defendant fired the gun or was driving the car. Circumstantial evidence is especially important when there is little or no direct evidence.