Evidence Vs Circumstantial Evidence

The existence of crime show television has implanted many ideas about how the courtroom works when it comes to presenting evidence. These shows have covered grounds from tampered evidence, to inadmissibility, and lack of relevancy. However, it is much easier to understand the difference between the viewpoints of pop culture on evidence and the actuality of the manner, when you understand the different types of evidence. Evidence is classified into two categories, direct and circumstantial evidence. In order to understand the definition of both, one must understand a material fact. A material fact is something that relates to any matter between two people, whom are in a dispute. As one would assume, direct evidence is defined as evidence that …show more content…
In this particular case from the 19th century, in England, a man was accused of robbing a women, murdering her, and burying the body. His accusation arose from solely circumstantial evidence. The man was first accused based on the fact that he knew the victim. The second piece of circumstantial evidence presented was that Hodge’s was spotted near the area in which the woman was murdered. This followed by more circumstantial evidence: Hodges was seen on the same day of the murder digging in the ground to burry an unidentified object, which was within a close proximity to the crime scene, and lastly the object Hodge’s was burying turned out to be money, which was in the approximate value that the murder victim was carrying. Now this case was based solely on circumstantial evidence, with no direct evidence, and yet it was still the job of the trier of fact to decide whether the evidence provided held enough relevance to the case to convict Hodge. Fortunately for Hodge, the jury found that the evidence presented did not meet a two-part test. First, for the jury to find Hodge guilty they must be “convinced of two things: (1) that the circumstances were consistent with Hodge having committed the crime, and (2) the facts were inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.” This case still holds precedence for current trials that are solely based on …show more content…
Liability, in law falls on the individual, company, corporation, or entity that is found to be legally responsible for the actions or outcomes of others and products. For instance, when determining the fault in an automobile accident when there is no other witnesses or cameras aside from the two individuals involved, the trier of fact must determine on a balance of probabilities that the circumstantial evidence is material fact, and the lack of alternative scenarios. If Driver A denies his vehicle came into contact with Driver B’s vehicle, the case relies on circumstantial evidence. In civil matter the burden of proof must be proven on a balance of probabilities. Therefore, if Driver B can produce enough circumstantial evidence, such as photographs of the damage, paint transfers, diagram of parking lot, and perhaps assigned spots in the lot if the accident occurred in a private lot, to infer that Driver A is responsible, and it is inconsistent that any other events could have occurred to disprove Driver A’s guilt, then the judge can decide on the case based solely on circumstantial evidence. As one can conclude it is difficult to remember the circumstantial evidence is not direct evidence, and that there are consequences to the possibilities of false incarceration or finding of guilt on an innocent. Therefore it