Distinguish direct evidence from circumstantial evidence with examples.

• A. Direct evidence supports a fact directly (eyewitness testimony); circumstantial evidence requires inference (fingerprints, alibi)
• B. Direct evidence requires inference; circumstantial evidence proves facts directly
• C. Hearsay is direct evidence
• D. All evidence is considered circumstantial

Answer: (A)

Direct evidence proves a fact directly, without needing to draw inferences. Eyewitness testimony is a classic example: if a person saw the suspect commit the crime, that testimony directly supports that the crime occurred and the person did it.

Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, requires inference to connect it to the fact in question. Finding fingerprints on a weapon suggests the person touched it, but you still infer involvement in the crime. An alibi places the person somewhere else at the time, which implies innocence or explains absence, but you must infer that the person wasn’t at the crime scene.

So, the statement that eyewitness testimony is direct evidence and fingerprints or an alibi are circumstantial accurately captures the distinction between the two types of evidence.