People often use the phrase “circumstantial evidence”, usually in a pejorative sense, e.g., “It’s MERELY circumstantial evidence.”
Could someone give me a clear, concise definition and an example? Is circumstantial evidence inferior to other kinds of evidence? Is there a word for evidence that’s NOT circumstantial? Thanks.
I expect that a legal eagle-type will be able to give a better definition than mine, but I’ll take a stab at it:
Circumstantial evidence is opposed to physical evidence.
Let’s say that Ed Zotti is found stabbed to death in the alley behind Rastahomie’s Bar & Grill. If the cops found the knife with Ed’s blood and Cecil’s fingerprints on it, that would be physical evedince. If Chef Rasta testifies that he loaned Cecil one of his knives that evening, and if another bar patron testified that he’d heard Cecil muttering about killing Ed, and an insurance company lawyer testifies that Cecil had taken out a multi-million-dollar life insurance policy on Ed 2 weeks before, that would be circumstantial evidence.
Now, it’s possible that Cecil could be wrongly convicted based on circumstantial evidence. I mean, he could have borrowed the knife to cut up some meat at home, he could have taken out the insurance policy on Ed because Cecil’s job is dependent upon Ed, and he could have been using hyperbole when he said he was going to “kill” Ed. Therefore, circumstantial evidence is somewhat suspect.
Circumstancial evidence is … well, evidence of circumstance. For example, lets say you are seen running away from a store that has just been robbed. That is circumstancial. You could be in the area running for a number of reasons and so by itself it is hardly evidence of anything.
However, if moments after a robbery you have in your possession the exact goods which were stolen from the store than that wouldn’t be cirsumstancial.
I don’t know if there is a word for non-circumstancial evidence.
I am sure the lawyers will be able to explain everything better than I can.
Circumstantial evidence is that which is not testimony of an eyewitness or equivalent (“earwitness”, etc) or direct documentation (videotape, etc), and which does not, in and of itself, constitute proof of the alleged fact that it supports. My fingerprints on the glass are not circumstantial evidence that I touched the glass, but they are circumstantial evidence that supports the premise that I was at the apartment where the glass is now (i.e., there are other circumstances that could account for my prints being on the glass).
I think over time people have become less inclined to believe that things necessarily are/were as someone saw them even if they aren’t committing deliberate perjury, so eyewitness and direct testimony has lost stature and circumstantial evidence has gained at its expense.
Disable Similes in this Post
Evidentally there’s all kinds:
Evidence
Legal evidence
Direct evidence
Circumstantial or indirect evidence
Testimony
Documentary evidence
Real evidence
Prima facie evidence
Proof
Cumulative evidence
Corroborative evidence
Relevant evidence
Material evidence
Competent evidence
Hearsay evidence
I have been on a jury three times now and heard the same speech all three times. Basically it was that circumstantial evidence is the same as any other evidence. No better, no worse.
I highly suspect that a lawyer would get into trouble if he tried to tell a jury that evidence was suspect because it was circumstantial.
Jim Petty
An oak tree is just a nut that stood it’s ground
You know, I came into this thread because of having ‘jury summons’ on the brain, and then to read that list of all the different kinds of evidence PLUS, jimpy you’ve been on a jury THREE times?? I’m blowing a gasket over being called once, now I feel even worse!
“I only use 10% or less of what I study. It’s a waist. sined, Dropout” Up The Down Stair Case
As others have suggested, circumstantial evidence is simply evidence that tends to prove an issue by proving other events (circumstances) from which the occurrence of the matter at hand can be reasonably inferred.
It’s generally used in contrast to direct evidence, which establishes the factual matter to be proved by it without the need for inferences.
If you step into a room just in time to see me pulling a knife from the bloody chest of my sworn enemy, and plunging it back into his now-lifeless body, you have only circumstantial evidence that I killed him. After all, you didn’t see me stab him. The only direct evidence you can provide is that I was merely removing the knife. The second stab wound was inflicted on an already lifeless body; at best, I have mutilated a corpse, not killed a man.
But it’s a very reasonable to infer that I stabbed him. The fact-finder (judge or jury) is permitted to make reasonable, common-sense inferences from the evidence that is presented, and decide what weight to give to each.
When people say, “That’s only circumstantial evidence,” perhaps they mean, “The inference you are drawing from these circumstances is not a strong one.” 
- Rick
Bricker is absolutely right, but let me give you one example I frequently share with juries to clarify the concept. It’s dull, but it seems to work.
- If I wake up tonight, look out my bedroom window, and see snow falling on the ground, well, that is direct evidence that it is snowing. However, if I don’t get up until the morning, and I look out my window and see my lawn covered in a carpet of snow, that is circumstantial evidence that it snowed last night – after all, the snow could have been trucked in by fairies, for all you know. But the “circumstance” (i.e., the snow on the ground) suggests (but doesn’t prove)that it did in fact snow last night.
And you’re right – in the law, both types of evidence are given equal weight. That doesn’t mean that in a particular circumstance one can’t be more compelling than another, just that you can’t give circumstancial evidence less weight just by virtue of it being circumstantial.
Lawyers have to spend time on this with any juror who is above 40 years of age, because most of them remember quite well Hamilton Berger’s damning accusation in all the old Perry Mason episodes – remember? “Your case is nothing but CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence.” That was always right before the real killer would stand up and announce his presence in the courtroom, much to the dismay of the prosecutor. I keep waiting for that to happen in one of my cases, but no such luck.
And oh yes, the word for evidence that is not circumstantial evidence is “direct evidence.” All of the sub-categories described by Rahul are still going to be either direct or circumstantial, depending upon the circumstances.
One interesting note to add:
Having just been on a jury involving a drug dealer, a major factor in a lot of circumstantial evidence is that of ‘dominion and control’ that is, does the evidence belong or is it associated with you (do you control it). In our case, we had the circumstantial evidence that this women (yes a 40 year old caucasian woman that looked like someone’s mother) had about a kilogram of cystal meth sorted out in baggies with all kinds of books laying around saying what people paid and owed her, as well as a whole second bedroom filled with stolen merchandise.
So at first, the defense lawyer is telling us how this poor woman was taken advantage of by some unknown drug dealer who left his stuff there and she just got caught with it. Except that the drug dealer records are in her handwriting, and some of the baggies are found in her purse, in addition to all over the apartment. Neighbors also testified she was there all the time, so it’s not like she sub-let the place to someone else.
She was convicted on this ‘circumstantial evidence’.
The reason circumstantial evidence is viewed more skeptically by some is that it requires inference, that is, deductive reasoning. This has two difficulties: first, often more than one inference can be deduced from a given set of facts, and second, it assumes people are capable of deductive reasoning. I frequently despair of the latter, even in myself. 
So-called ‘direct’ evidence is no better, though many assume it to be of the best value. While I, looking out my window and seeing it snowing can conclude that it is snowing by this ‘direct’ evidence, as a juror in court I don’t get to see the snow; I only get to hear someone TELL me about the snow coming down. Funny thing is, people lie, they can be mistaken, and most dastardly of all, they often see quite different things when watching the same occurrence. Not all direct evidence has this difficulty (e.g.: films), but one shouldn’t underrate the power of deductive reasoning to reach a valid conclusion in the absence of catching the culprict in flagrante delicto.