Does circumstantial evidence matter in a trial?

Evidence can either be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence, such as a confession, proves or disproves a fact without further presumptions or inference. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence relies on inferences to establish a conclusion about the facts of the case. It can be convincing and persuasive when presented effectively and could determine the outcome of your criminal case.

Circumstantial evidence plays a key role in criminal cases

In some cases, direct evidence may not be enough to provide a complete picture of what happened. In others, it may be flawed or incomplete. It may be hard for the prosecution to argue their case in such instances, given that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction.Circumstantial evidence can help corroborate other evidence, fill in gaps and establish a chain of events regarding the crime. All these are useful to a judge or jury determining your case. While some may argue that circumstantial evidence is inferior, you can get convicted solely based on circumstantial evidence.For instance, suppose someone is accused of murder, and there is evidence that they purchased a weapon similar to the one used in the crime shortly before it occurred. Such circumstantial evidence can help build a homicide case even when there are no witnesses.

Are you facing criminal charges?

Evidence is crucial in any criminal trial. Therefore, if you have been charged with a criminal offense, it helps to have an informed assessment of the evidence against you, from its legality to any existing loopholes.Depending on the circumstances of your alleged offense, you can poke holes in the prosecution’s case if you know where to look. The chances of getting a desirable verdict are higher with proper legal representation.