Whatever type of criminal charges you are facing, the prosecution won’t take your case forward unless it has some type of evidence against you. However, there are significant differences in the quality of the evidence that might be presented and what type of evidence the prosecution is relying upon.
In many cases, the bulk of the prosecution’s case is based on “circumstantial evidence.” What does that mean?
Can you be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone?
Essentially, there are two types of evidence that can be used to prove a case: direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence is straightforward and doesn’t require a judge or jury to “connect the dots” or make any inferences. For example, video footage of someone committing an assault would be direct evidence.
Circumstantial evidence can be a lot more nuanced than direct evidence and often subject to interpretation. It doesn’t directly prove a fact but suggests that something is true based on reasonable interpretations of the situation. For example, when someone is seen running away from a crime scene, that doesn’t prove that they were involved with the crime – but it could suggest a possible connection.
In many criminal cases, the prosecution will seek to build a case by adding one piece of circumstantial evidence on top of another until there is a coherent picture that is compelling and able to convince a judge or jury of your guilt. However, circumstantial evidence can also be greatly subject to interpretation – and the same set of facts can often have more than one explanation. For example, you may have been seen running away from the scene of a crime because you stumbled over the aftermath of the crime and were terrified of being blamed.
It takes skilled legal guidance to understand how circumstantial evidence can be weighed – and how it can be challenged. If you’re facing serious criminal charges, it is wise to learn more about your possible defense options as soon as possible.