Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence is an indirect indicator of the ‘facts’ surrounding a criminal case, and must be backed up with other evidence in order to be accepted into court. Although it is weak evidence, if a criminal attorney does not protest circumstantial evidence then it may seem very incriminating. Many circumstantial statements during testimony can make the defendant appear guilty even though they do not offer any real facts.

Circumstantial evidence often comes out in the form of a theory. A witness might claim “after she was killed, he acted nervous, like he had something to hide”. This kind of statement might make the jury believe that the defendant was involved in the killing, however it does not provide any real evidence that he was. Instead, his behavior supposedly infers that he had previously committed a criminal act.

Another common example might be fingerprints or DNA evidence found in the vicinity of the crime. If the defendant had a valid reason for being there before the crime occurred, it is reasonable that they may have left fingerprints or DNA behind. However, when the crime scene analysts discover physical evidence at the crime scene, it will appear as if the defendant committed the crime.

Most people think that circumstantial evidence is not a part of the criminal process. But this is not always true. Although direct evidence is stronger, circumstantial evidence often plays a large role in incriminating the defendant. Consider the following examples:

Direct evidence: “I saw him shoot the victim”

Circumstantial Evidence: “I saw him walk into the house. There was a sound of gunfire and he walked out covered in blood.”

While direct evidence provides strong testimony, circumstantial evidence can still provide a reasonable basis to believe that a defendant committed a crime. However, circumstantial evidence can also be misleading and in some examples what may be ‘assumed’ by circumstantial evidence is far from fact. Take the example above, perhaps there was another person inside the house, and the accused was trying to prevent the killing, resulting in him becoming covered in blood. Since the real culprit was not seen, the accused becomes the sole suspect. It is up to the criminal lawyer to provide the real facts and show where evidence can be weak or misleading.