Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference.[1] Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, directly supports the truth of evidence, from which the truth of the assertion may be inferred.
For example: a witness who testifies that he saw the defendant shoot the victim gives direct evidence. A forensics expert who says that ballistics proves that the defendant’s gun shot the bullet that killed the victim gives circumstantial evidence, from which B’s guilt may be inferred.
In direct evidence a witness relates what he or she directly experienced. (Usually the experience is by sight or hearing, though it may come though any sense, including touch or pain. State v Famber, 358 Mo 288, 214 SW2d 40.)
Truck route GPS
buy hot tub
