Editing Circumstantial evidence

{{Short description|Evidence indirectly supporting conclusion}}
{{Other uses|Circumstantial evidence (disambiguation)}}
{{More citations needed|date=January 2009}}
{{Evidence law}}

'''Circumstantial evidence''' is [[evidence]] that relies on an [[inference]] to connect it to a conclusion of fact, such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, [[direct evidence]] supports the truth of an assertion directly, i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

==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.

==Civil law==
Circumstantial evidence is used in civil courts to establish or refute [[legal liability|liability]]. It is usually the most common form of evidence, for example in [[product liability]] cases and [[road traffic accident]]s. Forensic analysis of [[skid mark]]s can frequently allow a reconstruction of the accident. By measuring the length of such marks and using dynamic analysis{{clarify|date=July 2021}} of the car and road conditions at the time of the accident, it may be found that a driver underestimated his or her speed. Circumstantial evidence is also prevalent in attempts to recover damages from alleged [[tortfeasor]]s.

==Criminal law==
Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish [[guilt (law)|guilt]] or [[innocence]] through [[reasoning]]. With obvious exceptions ([[child|immature]], incompetent, or [[mental illness|mentally ill]] individuals), most criminals try to avoid generating direct evidence. Hence, the [[prosecutor|prosecution]] usually must resort to circumstantial evidence to prove the existence of ''[[mens rea]]'', or intent.

One example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of a person around the time of an alleged offense. In the case of someone charged with theft of money, were the suspect seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items shortly after the time of the alleged theft, the spree might prove to be circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt.

===Forensic evidence===
{{more citations needed|Section|date=March 2021}}
Other examples of circumstantial evidence are [[fingerprint]] analysis, [[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 facts—but if not directly witnessed by someone when the crime was committed, they are still considered circumstantial. However, when proved by [[expert witness]]es, they are usually sufficient to decide a case, especially in the absence of any direct evidence. Owing to subsequent developments in forensic methods, old undecided cases (or [[cold case (criminology)|cold cases]]) are frequently resolved.

===Validity of circumstantial evidence===
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence,<ref>LH Hoffmann & DT Zeffertt, The South African Law of Evidence, 4th ed., p. 589</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Would a judge dismiss a case based solely on circumstantial evidence? |url=http://legallyliterate.com/judge-dismiss-case-based-solely-on-circumstantial-evidence/ |date=January 2, 2016 |access-date=February 1, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161020020323/http://legallyliterate.com/judge-dismiss-case-based-solely-on-circumstantial-evidence/ |archive-date=October 20, 2016 |url-status=dead }}</ref> which is popularly assumed to be the most powerful, but this is not the case.<ref>Walton, Douglas. ''Legal Argumentation and Evidence''. Penn State Press, 2010. pp. 77–78</ref> Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. The common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence.<ref>Walton, Douglas. ''Legal Argumentation and Evidence''. Penn State Press, 2010.  page 78</ref> 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.<ref>[http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/districtcourt/jury-instructions/criminal/pdf/2240-direct-and-circumstantial-evidence.pdf Massachusetts Courts, jury instructions, Direct and Circumstantial Evidence] "Circumstantial evidence ... may have an advantage because it comes from several different sources, which can be used as a check on each other."</ref> Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,<ref>[https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178240.pdf Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement], U.S. Department of Justice, 1999 "Even honest and well-meaning witnesses can make errors, such as identifying the wrong person or failing to identify the perpetrator of a crime."</ref> and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.<ref>[https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/files/pdf/StudyCWC2001.pdf How Mistaken and Perjured Eyewitness Identification Testimony Put 46 Innocent Americans on Death Row.] Rob Warden, Executive Director, Center on Wrongful Convictions, Northwestern University School of Law, 2001</ref> 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 (eyewitness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eyewitness does.

Eyewitness testimony is frequently unreliable, or subject to conflict or outright fabrication. For example, the [[RMS Titanic|RMS ''Titanic'']] sank in the presence of approximately 700 witnesses. For many years, there was vigorous debate on whether the ship broke into two before sinking.<ref>{{cite web|last=Wormstedt|first=Bill|year=2003|url=https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/articles/wormstedt.pdf|title=The Facts - What did the Survivors See of the Break-up of the Titanic?|publisher=[[Encyclopedia Titanica]]|access-date=July 29, 2018}}</ref> It was not until the ship was found, in September 1985, that the truth was known. However, there is often more than one logical conclusion naturally inferred 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. If the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility.<ref>[http://www.nycourts.gov/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Circumstantial_Evidence.pdf New York State Courts, Criminal Jury Instructions, Circumstantial Evidence] "If there is a reasonable hypothesis from the proven facts consistent with the defendant's innocence, then you must find the defendant not guilty." citing ''People v Morris, 36 N.Y.2d 877 (1975)''</ref>

====Examples====
Much of the evidence against convicted American terrorist [[Timothy McVeigh]] was circumstantial. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, Robert Precht said, "the prosecution's use of indirect evidence is no cause for worry". McVeigh was sentenced to death and subsequently executed by the US federal government, while [[Terry Nichols|his accomplice]] was sentenced to serve consecutive federal life sentences.<ref>{{cite web|title='U' community satisfied with bombing verdict |last1=Jason |first1=Stoffer |last2=Paik |first2=Christine M. |newspaper=The Michigan Daily Online |url=http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1997/jun/06-04-97/news/news3.html |date=June 4, 1997 |access-date=April 16, 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19990423153905/http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1997/jun/06-04-97/news/news3.html |archive-date=April 23, 1999 }}</ref> The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson for the [[murder of Laci Peterson|murder of his wife Laci Peterson]] was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence, leading to Peterson's being sentenced to death. Peterson was subsequently spared execution, and in December of 2021, he was re-sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.<ref>Burke, Minyvonne. "Scott Peterson, convicted of killing pregnant wife Laci Peterson, resentenced to life in prison". NBC News. Retrieved March 21, 2025.</ref> Another case that relied on circumstantial evidence was that of [[Nelson Serrano]], who received four death sentences for four [[Murder (United States law)|first-degree murders]]. The 2015 murder trial of [[Ivan Chan Man-sum]] from [[Hong Kong]] was a conviction based ''solely'' on circumstantial evidence<ref>{{cite web|title=Hong Kong financial boss Ivan Chan receives life sentence at retrial for murdering his mistress|url=https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-crime/article/2123004/hong-kong-financial-boss-ivan-chan-guilty-murder-death-his|publisher=[[South China Morning Post]]|date=December 5, 2017}}</ref> without finding the [[Murder conviction without a body|body]] of his murdered girlfriend. Chan was consequently sentenced to [[mandatory sentencing|mandatory]] [[life imprisonment]].<ref>[http://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news.php?id=190406 "Love story ends in life sentence for killer"]. ''[[The Standard (Hong Kong)|The Standard]]'' (Hong Kong). December 6, 2017.</ref>

In [[Singapore]], law student [[Sunny Ang]] was sentenced to death in 1965 solely based on circumstantial evidence when he was convicted of murdering his girlfriend during a scuba diving trip near [[Sisters' Islands]] on 27 August 1963. The victim, Jenny Cheok, was murdered for her insurance money, which amounted to $450,000. Her body has never been found. The additional absence of Cheok's body made Ang's conviction one of the landmark verdicts in Singapore, where it involved a [[murder conviction without a body]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/guilty-as-charged-sunny-ang-found-guilty-of-girlfriends-murder-though-body|title=Guilty As Charged: Sunny Ang found guilty of girlfriend's murder though body was never found|website=The Straits Times|date=14 May 2016|access-date=30 May 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.mewatch.sg/watch/True-Files-S1-E6-The-Trial-of-Sunny-Ang-50996|title=True Files S1 E6 - The Trial of Sunny Ang|website=meWATCH|date=5 February 2016|access-date=30 May 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1789_2011-09-26.html|title=The Sunny Ang murder case|website=National Library Board|access-date=30 May 2021}}</ref>

A famous aphorism on the probity of circumstantial evidence was penned by [[Henry David Thoreau]]: "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."<ref>{{cite book |last1=Reay-Smith |first1=John |title=The Lawyer's Quotation Book: A Legal Companion |location=New York |publisher=[[Barnes and Noble]], Marboro Books Corp. |year=1992 |isbn=0-88029-879-0 |page=91 |url=https://archive.org/details/lawyersquotation00reay/page/91 }} {{cite book |first1=W. H. |last1=Auden |author-link1=W. H. Auden |first2=Louis |last2=Kronenberger|author-link2=Louis Kronenberger |location=New York |publisher=[[Viking Press]] |year=1962 |title=The Viking Book of Aphorisms|url=https://archive.org/details/vikingbookofapho0000unse |url-access=registration }} Quoted in {{cite book |page=[https://archive.org/details/quotablelawyer00shra/page/103 103] |first1=David |last1=Schrager |author-link1=David Shrager |first2=Elizabeth |last2=Frost |title=The Quotable Lawyer |location=New York; London |publisher=[[Facts on File]] |year=1986 |isbn=0-8160-1184-2 |url=https://archive.org/details/quotablelawyer00shra/page/103 }}</ref>

==See also==

* [[Consciousness of guilt]]
* [[Expert witness]]
* [[Forensic engineering]]
* [[Forensic science]]
* [[Hearsay]]
* [[Inculpatory evidence]]

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Circumstantial Evidence}}
[[Category:Evidence law]]