DNA Doesn’t Mean Guilty

When it comes to true crime cases having DNA evidence is often treated as the holy grail of evidence. If someone’s DNA is at the scene of the crime, then they must have committed the crime, right? Wrong.

Generally, evidence is classified into two categories: circumstantial and direct. Circumstantial evidence requires jurors to make inferences about the information presented to them whereas direct evidence doesn’t require any inference from the jurors. I feel it’s important to recap the two types of evidence because people often wrongly make the assumption that circumstantial evidence is weaker than direct evidence, which isn’t necessarily true.

It’s also important to note that there is no legal distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence as far as the court proceedings go, but jurors must be confident that the accused committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Direct Evidence

Direct evidence is the testimony of a witness who was present for the crime and used their senses to determine what happened. This means the witness saw, heard or touched the attacker directly and no inference is needed. Physical direct evidence includes video or audio recordings where the crime can clearly be seen to be happening.