Define direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Explain the differences between them

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Direct evidence is based on first-hand observations of the person testifying. No inference or presumption is needed. If the jury believes the testimony, the facts testified about are conclusively established. For example, if the jurors believe a woman who testified that she saw the defendant shoot the victim, they must conclude that the defendant shot the victim. No other facts are needed to establish this point.
Circumstantial evidence introduces one or more facts that tend to prove a fact, but jurors must draw conclusions (called inferences) based on this evidence in order to conclude that the fact exists. Unlike direct evidence, it is possible for the jurors to believe the circumstantial evidence but draw the conclusion that the event that the attorney is trying to prove did not happen. For example, a juror might believe the witness who said she saw the defendant holding a smoking gun but conclude that the defendant was not the person who fired it. The jurors are charged with weighing the evidence. Some items of circumstantial evidence are so important that they establish key elements of the offense. Other items may be of such limited value that the jurors ignore them.