What is the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence?

• A. Direct evidence requires an inference.
• B. Direct evidence proves a fact itself; circumstantial evidence requires an inference.
• C. Circumstantial evidence proves the fact itself.
• D. Direct evidence is always inadmissible.

Answer: (B)

Direct evidence directly proves a fact without needing to infer something else. For example, a video showing the moment a crime occurs, or an eyewitness account stating, “I saw the suspect shoot the victim,” directly establishes that the shooting happened.

Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, does not prove the fact by itself. It requires interpreting a chain of facts and drawing a reasonable inference that the fact occurred. For instance, finding a suspect’s fingerprint at the scene and placing the suspect’s car nearby suggests involvement, but it doesn’t directly prove that the suspect committed the crime without linking those facts together.

So, direct evidence proves a fact itself; circumstantial evidence requires an inference to connect to that fact. The other statements misstate this distinction (for example, direct evidence does not require an inference, and circumstantial evidence does not prove the fact by itself).