The difference between direct and circumstantial evidence
The difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is pretty simple. Direct evidence proves a fact without any hesitation or reasoning. For instance, the witness heard the accused plotting how they would rob the bank. The other direct evidence could have been that the witness saw two guys robbing the bank. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence is more like a collection of pieces of evidence to support the primary evidence. A witness cannot say directly about the fact, but the witness can present other events to support it. For instance, a witness can tell that he or she was going to the beach, but he or she had his or her car prepared and ready for a vacation (Ellison, 2018). An example of direct evidence is the case of Hampton v. State, 873 N. E.2d 1074 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (Court of Appeals of Indiana, 2015). In the case, the state attorneys had presented DNA as direct evidence to the court during trials.
On the other hand, an example of circumstantial evidence is the (People v. Conley, 543 N.E.2d 138 [I11.App.Ct.1989]) case where one high school student had hit another using a bottle during a party breaking the nose, cheek, and upper and lower jaws of the victim causing permanent numbness of the mouth (Court Listener, n.d). The conviction was aggravated battery committed intentionally and knowingly resulting in bodily harm, permanent disability, and disfigurement. The use of a weapon, the level of damage, use of the bottle, and absence of warning indicated the intent to inflict permanent disability.
The burden of proof comprises of parts. The first one is the burden of production mandates parties in a case to produce enough evidence showing the fact in the issue. The other one is the burden of persuasion requiring parties in a situation to persuade juries of actual circumstances. An example of a court case where the burden of proof was needed but was found insufficient was Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994), where the government was required to show the burden of proof (Justia, n.d). On the other hand, the case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), required police to show proof that the persons they were dealing with were armed and dangerous (Justia, 2010).
Reasonable doubt standard is about pieces of evidence that are presented in court, and arguments put forward by the prosecution shows the defendant’s guilt that any rational person would accept it. Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof (Kenton, 2020). Convincing evidence presented in court needs to be true (LaMance, 2018). For instance, in Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994), the court ruled that instructions provided to jurors needed to be clear, but did not give a specific standard for such education. The preponderance of the evidence is standard evidence, which usually has a higher weight of the evidence. It is not as strong as beyond reasonable doubt, but it is under that category as in truthfulness of the testimony (Hill, G., & Hill, K).
The presumption in a piece of evidence is accepting a fact is valid until it is found otherwise, and iinférences is about the same but with less power where the jury can refuse the proof. Lay witnesses and expert witnesses are two different types of witnesses. A lay witness is usually an ordinary person who gives his or her testimony based on personal knowledge as well as life experiences. In contrast, an expert witness testifies according to qualifications and expertise in the field of study (US LEGAL, n.d). In the case of Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440 (2004), the Supreme Court sitting in North Carolina rejected the standard that the federal government had set for admitting expert testimony (Miller, n.d). Instead, admissibility of expert evidence was based on showing sufficient proof in the area of expertise, a witness qualified as an expert in the field that he or she is testifying, and relevance of the testimony. Lay witnesses testify facts, but they cannot state their opinions or conclusions. However, expert witnesses can since they are considered to be an expert. Also, expert witnesses usually brought in for the jury to understand once there is complex information about the case (Cappellino, 2020).
References
Cappellino, A., & J.d. (2020, February 18). Lay Witness vs. Expert Witness Opinions: A Primer. Retrieved from https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/lay-witness-vs-expert-witness-opinions-primer/
Ellison, D. (2018, June 14). What is the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence? Retrieved from https://www.dellisonlaw.com/what-is-the-difference-between-direct-and-circumstantial-evidence
Hill, G., & Hill, K. (n.d.). Legal Dictionary – Law.com. Retrieved from https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1586
Kenton, W. (2020, February 23). What Is a Reasonable Doubt? Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reasonable-doubt.asp
LaMance, K. (2018, May 3). Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard. Retrieved from https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/clear-and-convincing-evidence-standard.html
Court of Appeals of Indiana (2015). Memorandum decision. Retrieved from< https://cases.justia.com/indiana/court-of-appeals/2015-49a02-1503-cr-141.pdf?ts=1448467689
Court Listener (n.d). People v. Conley, 543 N.E.2d 138 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989). Retrieved from https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2097961/people-v-conley/
Justia (n.d). Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/511/1/
Justia (2010). Evidentiary Standards and Burdens of Proof. Retrieved from https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/lawsuits-and-the-court-process/evidentiary- standards-and-burdens-of-proof/
LEGAL (n.d). Lay witness and legal definition. Retrieved from https://definitions.uslegal.com/l/lay-witness/
Miller, K.L. (n.d).Experts vs. Lay witnesses. Retrieved from https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog.unc.edu/files/course_materials/01%20Witness%20Paper.pdf