Explain the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Give two examples of each. What is the role of the jury in evaluating the evidence?
What will be an ideal response?
Direct evidence, if believed, establishes a fact without an inference. The witness testifies that he/she saw the crime being committed. If the jury believes the witness, nothing else is necessary to convict the defendant. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, requires the jury to draw an inference in order to conclude that the fact happened. It is up to the jury to decide how strong the inference is. They also decide whether to believe the witness or not.
The jury is the "trier of the fact.". It is charged with judging the truthfulness of each witness. Testimony during both direct and cross examination is evaluated. Statements introduced to corroborate or impeach witnesses will also be considered. In addition to judging the credibility of each witness, the jury decides how much weight to give the testimony.
You might also like to view...
In what case did the U.S. Supreme Court hold that due process expects punitive damages to be reasonable, considering: (1) the degree of reprehensibility of conduct, (2) the disparity between actual harm and the punitive award, and (3) a comparison of the award to similar civil or criminal penalties?
A. State Farm v. Campbell B. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker C. Phillip Morris U.S.A. v. Williams D. BMW v. Gore
In damage suits, money that is paid is called damages
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
A youthful offense is any act committed by a juvenile that is considered unacceptable for a child.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)
Voluntary acts satisfy what requirement
a. mens rea
b. actus reus
c. status
d. automatism