From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Circumstantial evidence is unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence.

Contents 1 Compared to direct evidence 2 Applications of circumstantial evidence 2.1 Law 2.2 Other applications 2.2.1 History 2.2.2 Science 2.2.3 Social Studies 3 See also

Here is an example of how circumstantial evidence might be distinguished from direct evidence. If a witness testified that they were out in rain or saw rain from a window while indoors, that testimony would be considered direct evidence that it was raining in a specified place. However, if a witness testified that they had gone underground to catch a train when the weather was dry, but whilst on the train, noticed passengers boarding at one station after another wearing wet clothes and carrying wet umbrellas, their testimony would constitute strong circumstantial evidence that it was raining in the area.

Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning.

The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is important because, with the obvious exceptions (the immature, incompetent, or mentally ill), nearly all criminals are careful to not generate direct evidence, and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent. 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.

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. In practice, circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate.

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". [1] The recent Scott Peterson trial was based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is also used in civil courts to establish or deny liability.

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 their innocence, the 'benefit of the doubt' principle would apply.

Circumstantial evidence is not considered to be proof that something happened but it is often useful as a guide for further investigation.

An example from genealogy would be that if census records showed several people with the same surname lived at the same address, likely relationships could be inferred from age and gender.

Circumstantial evidence is normally used in science only to support other forms of evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is used in social studies to reach logical conclusions where other forms of evidence do not exist.

• Hearsay