In this story about a hit and run drunk driver, the defense attorney contends that all the evidence is circumstantial.
The injuries on the victim’s legs measured up to the shape of the vehicle’s bumper.
The victim’s DNA was identified from samples on the vehicle’s bumper.
I can see how the former evidence might ve considered cirsumstantial, but the latter?
BTW, the guy pled “no contest” and was convicted yesterday. He hasn’t been sentenced yet. He said he thought he hit a post. The cops say he was drunk, but since he left the scene and wasn’t found for a couple of days, they can’t prove he was drunk. He has several previous DWI convictions.
Because, in a legal sense, “circumstantial” evidence is evidence not provided by an eyewitness to the crime.
Legally, circumstantial evidence is more than enough to convict. Lawyers (and TV shows) have been creating the impression that circumstantial evidence somehow carries less weight. But it is at least as definitive as eyewitness testimony (eyewitnesses can be mistaken) if properly handled and presented.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that tends to prove a factual matter by proving other events or circumstances from which the occurrence of the matter at issue can be reasonably inferred. Direct evidence is evidence that, if believed, immediately establishes the factual matter to be proved without the need for inferences.
DNA evidence is circumstantial. It says that the genetic material tested has a very high likelihood of coming from the individual in question. How did the victim’s DNA get on the bumper? The obvious inference is that the bumper struck the victim. But it doesn’t prove that the bumper struck the victim. It merely proves that the victim’s genetic material was on the bumper. If the fact at issue is that the victim was struck, then DNA evidence is circumstantial.
As RealityChuck suggests, since juries are meant to find both facts and the reasonable inferences from those facts, circumstantial evidence is just as sufficient to convict as direct evidence.
Eyewitness testimony is not always direct. “I heard a scream, looked up, and then I saw the car speeding away and the victim lying on the ground.” That’s circumstantial - it invites the inference that the car hit the victim.
“I heard a scream, and I looked up to see the the car strike the victim.”
That’s direct.