Direct Evidence v. Circumstantial Evidence

Direct evidence is obvious, and it requires no inference. Circumstantial evidence requires an inference. If you saw me walk out of Crossfit Cleveland red-faced and covered in sweat, you could infer that I worked out. In court, your testimony would be considered circumstantial. If you peeked in the front window and saw me working out, that would be direct evidence.

TV lawyers are always objecting to circumstantial evidence, so we tend to give it a bad rap. But there are times when circumstantial evidence can outweigh direct. Let’s say 10 members of Crossfit Cleveland testified that they had never seen me at a workout. But security cameras filmed me going in clean and coming out sweaty, my name was on the sign-in sheet, checks in my name were written to the gym, I had scabby shins, I groaned and cussed whenever I walked down stairs, and I was ripped like an extra from 300. In this scenario, circumstantial evidence might outweigh the direct.