Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that suggests a fact exists, but doesn't directly prove it. In other words, it relies on an inference or chain of reasoning to connect the evidence to a conclusion, unlike direct evidence, which directly supports the truth of a statement.
For example, finding a suspect's fingerprint at a crime scene is circumstantial evidence, as it suggests the suspect was present but doesn't prove they committed the crime. Without evidence, there is no criminal case and no conviction. There are many types of evidence that all seek to prove different things in cases.
The jury, as the ultimate arbiter of justice, is presented with the obligation of deciding the facts in a case and must choose a side and a story to believe in when making a decision, making them an integral part of the legal process. Circumstantial evidence, a frequently used form of evidence in criminal and other cases, is not just common but also the backbone of the legal system.
In fact, most of the evidence used in criminal cases is circumstantial. It serves as proof of a fact or even a set of facts from which someone could infer the facts in question. For instance, a witness saw a suspect fleeing the scene on foot after a convenience store robbery.
The act of 'running away' from a crime scene is circumstantial evidence that they may have committed the robbery. On the other hand, direct evidence directly proves any facts in question in a crime. For instance, if the witness observed the robbery and provided testimony at trial, this would be considered direct evidence.
Legitimate Proof of a Crime
Both direct and circumstantial evidence are legitimate proof that someone committed a crime. In fact, they are common in all state and federal criminal courts. The justice system's fairness is evident in the fact that someone could be convicted of a crime based solely on circumstantial evidence.
Furthermore, given the relatively common occurrence of false testimony and mistaken identification, circumstantial evidence can be more reliable than direct evidence, providing a strong foundation for the justice system.
In California, criminal trials often rely on circumstantial evidence to prove allegations against a defendant and secure a conviction. On the other side, criminal defense attorneys will make arguments to cast reasonable doubt on the alleged circumstantial proof.
They could even argue that, if all the circumstantial facts are correct, they suggest that their client is innocent or, at the very least, there is some reasonable doubt of guilt, and they must return an acquittal.
Proof of Guilt
When a defendant is charged with a felony or misdemeanor offense, the District Attorney must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. This means that the evidence must be so convincing that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely on it.
They are obligated to exchange all relevant discovery material in advance, including the evidence they will use against the defendant. Circumstantial evidence, also known as "indirect evidence," does not directly prove a defendant's guilt; instead, it's evidence of another fact that can lead to the conclusion or inference that the defendant is guilty.
Circumstantial evidence is a set of facts or proof that, when added up, seeks to explain a certain point in question. In other words, Circumstantial proof means the evidence doesn't directly prove a crucial fact, but instead:
- It proves another fact in the case, and
- Someone can reasonably conclude that a key fact occurred.
When circumstantial evidence is presented to the court in a jury trial, the person bringing forward the evidence wants the jury to make inferences about what happened.
When circumstantial evidence is strong, it tends to render other explanations for the evidence seem implausible. Often, the prosecutor and defense attorney advocate for their respective sides regarding the interpretation of circumstantial evidence in a case.
Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence
Circumstantial evidence requires a jury to infer what happened, while direct evidence is someone telling you that they witnessed the events in question. Direct evidence can include eyewitness testimony, an eyewitness hearing someone make certain statements, videotapes or pictures, and other evidence that directly shows an event took place.
A jury is not required to weigh direct or circumstantial evidence any differently. Direct evidence can be unreliable when the source of that evidence is considered unreliable. If someone with a motivation to lie testifies about a fact in dispute, that motivation could cause untrue testimony. Juries are asked to weigh all of the evidence to determine the facts in dispute to decide guilt.
Most criminal convictions are based solely on circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, California criminal law permits the prosecution to convict a defendant based solely on circumstantial evidence. If direct evidence were always necessary for a conviction, a crime would need a direct eyewitness, or the guilty party would avoid criminal responsibility. This underscores the significant role that circumstantial evidence plays in the outcome of a criminal case.
A prosecutor will use whatever evidence is available in seeking a criminal conviction against a defendant. If circumstantial evidence is all the prosecutor has, then that is what they will present when trying a criminal case. Just like direct evidence, a prosecutor can use circumstantial evidence to prove all the elements of the crime and a defendant's criminal intent.
What are the Jury Instructions?
The California Criminal Jury Instructions at CALCRIM 223 and CALCRIM 224 offer explanations about circumstantial evidence:
- CALCRIM 223 specifically defines direct and circumstantial evidence. In these instructions, the judge will inform a jury that one type of evidence is not necessarily more reliable than the other and that neither type of evidence is entitled to any greater weight.
- CALCRIM 224 explains that the jury should only seek to make reasonable conclusions from any circumstantial evidence presented in a case.
It states that if there are two or more reasonable conclusions in a case where one points to innocence and one points to guilt, then you must accept the one that points to innocence. The jury is further instructed to reject any unreasonable conclusions.
What are the Possible Defenses?
A common defense against circumstantial evidence is that the prosecution's interpretation is incorrect. If the circumstantial evidence presented can also be interpreted in other ways, then these alternative interpretations can be presented to the jury for consideration.
When a prosecutor and defense attorney present their cases to the jury, they are essentially asking the jury to interpret the facts and circumstances in the way they see the case. A defense attorney can also attack circumstantial evidence as unreliable and any witnesses who present circumstantial evidence to be inaccurate in their testimony.
The core of any criminal case is evidence. If you are under investigation for a crime or have already been charged, it's crucial to understand the role of evidence in your case. Contact our California criminal defense attorneys to review the details and explore your legal options. Perhaps we can negotiate with the prosecution team to reduce or dismiss the charges after we demonstrate that they cannot prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Perhaps we could also enter into prefiling negotiations with law enforcement and the District Attorney to convince them not to file criminal charges in the first place, known as a "DA reject." The criminal defense law firm of Eisner Gorin LLP is located in Los Angeles, CA.
Related Content:
If you have one phone call from jail, call us! If you are facing criminal charges,