This article examines the differences involving direct and circumstantial evidence as they are defined in criminal trials in the state of NJ. The article is based on the NJ Criminal Jury Instruction.
Jurors are allowed to uncover facts from the evidence presented during the criminal trial. Evidence will be either direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence involves evidence that directly establishes a fact, without an inference, and which in itself, if true, effectively determines that fact. Conversely, circumstantial evidence would mean evidence that shows a fact from which an inference of the appearance of another fact may be drawn.
An inference is a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be extracted from another fact or group of facts established by the evidence.
It is not required that facts be established by direct evidence. They may be established by circumstantial evidence or by a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. Both direct and circumstantial evidence are sufficient as a method of proof. In truth, in many circumstances, circumstantial evidence may be more specific, satisfying and influential than direct evidence.
In any event, both circumstantial and direct evidence must be scrutinized and examined very carefully. A conviction may be influenced by circumstantial evidence alone or in combination with direct evidence, provided, of course, that it persuades the jury of a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Then again, if circumstantial evidence gives rise to a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the defendant's guilt then the defendant must be found not guilty.
Here is a simple illustration:
The issue is demonstrating that it snowed during the night:
a) Direct Evidence: Testimony showing that the witness noticed snow falling during the night.
b) Circumstantial Evidence: Testimony suggesting that there was no snow on the ground before the witness went to sleep, and that when he arose in the morning, it was not snowing, but the ground was snow-covered.
The former directly goes to establish that fact that snow fell during the night; while the latter confirms facts from which the inference that it snowed during the night could be drawn.
