The proper use of evidence remains one of the most important things connected to the court process. To be able to assess evidence, it is necessary to be familiar with the types of evidence and the differences between them.
Speaking about different types of evidence that help crime investigators to find and punish a criminal, it is necessary, to begin with, physical or real evidence. Real evidence can be used in court to establish the guilt of the criminal. This type of evidence is represented by items that help to reveal the circumstances of a crime. Physical evidence can be obtained in different ways; for instance, it may be found in the place of crime. In such a case, crime investigators can make conclusions about the things that have happened. The most common items classified as physical evidence usually help to understand the nature of the crime. For instance, among the examples of physical evidence that are the most important for uncovering crimes there are different types of weapons.
More importantly, some of them such as cold steel arms may be with traces of blood, and such evidence is significant for the investigation. What is more, things that may act as physical evidence include the items of clothing or personal property of the participants (Ver Steegh, 2016). Some items such as clothes with the traces of blood or other types of biomaterials act as important evidence in case of sexual assault or inflictions of injury on other people (Menaker, Campbell, & Wells, 2016). To continue, physical evidence may be represented by different documents found in the place of a crime or at suspects’ houses. The documents may be handwritten or printed; they include contracts, financials, and even correspondence. Physical or real evidence is extremely important to the investigation because it can be observed in the courtroom and it helps to establish a link between the actual criminal act itself and people connected to it such as victim or offender.
Speaking about demonstrative evidence, we usually mean all the objects that can be used in court to prove the fact significant for the discussed case to judge or jury (Lilly, Capra, & Saltzburg, 2015). Therefore, this term is used to describe only those things that can be demonstrated to other people responsible for returning a verdict. It is necessary to say that there are different methods used to clarify the issues at a crime scene. These methods are connected to presenting different types of demonstrative evidence. To begin with, demonstrative evidence that can be presented includes different objects that have certain traces that can be analyzed. For example, public prosecutors may use bloody weapons or personal effects that can be analyzed and presented as evidence showing a certain person’s implication in a crime. Another type of demonstrative evidence used in the courtroom is represented by different photographs, videotapes, and charts that help to present the facts related to the crime or an alleged criminal. Such type of evidence is called illustrative. Demonstrating the evidence of these two types in the courtroom, public prosecutors may present a series of strong arguments establishing the guilt of a suspected person.
Nevertheless, it is also extremely important to prove that the demonstrated evidence is real. To do that, one may use the testimony of witness or witnesses or findings of an expert study that has been conducted to confirm the hypothesis suggested by criminal investigators (Ashworth & Horder, 2013). The demonstration of the pieces of actual evidence in the court is extremely important for the triers of fact as it helps them to evaluate the situation and make their conclusion. It may be also necessary for official prosecutors to present the data on how and why the demonstrated objects were used by alleged criminals. As for the demonstration of illustrative evidence, it may help the triers of fact to have a look at the evidence that cannot be brought in the courtroom or familiarize themselves with the results of expertise conducted by other specialists. Using them, the triers of fact can better understand the evidence and decide whether the presented facts can be taken into consideration and used during delivering the verdict.
Furthermore, it is necessary to discuss the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. According to official laws, the facts supposed to be able to clarify the circumstances of a criminal case should be proved with the help of these types of evidence. As for the direct evidence, the term is used to denote all items of evidence that may prove or disprove the fact directly; thus, in the case with direct evidence, there is no need to make additional assumptions (Gardner & Anderson, 2014, p.80). For example, if someone claims to have seen the suspect commit the crime, it is regarded as direct evidence. To continue, circumstantial or indirect evidence may help to prove suspect’s implication in a crime but the use of only this type of evidence is usually not enough for the jury and judge to make an informed decision (Anderson & Hopkins, (2014). There can be a lot of examples of circumstantial evidence and a series of demonstrated examples that are supposed to prove the same fact usually strengthen each other.
Indirect evidence should be reviewed together with other facts; for instance, if a weapon was found in the bag belonging to the alleged criminal, it cannot be regarded as a proof of his or her guilt. At the same time, there can be additional facts such as statements made by witnesses who have seen this person near the scene of the crime. In such a case, the items of indirect evidence can be used together. The necessity to prove the additional statements is the primary difference between direct and indirect evidence. Speaking about these two notions, it is also necessary to discuss the concept of overwhelming circumstantial evidence. The overwhelming evidence is evidence that helps the judge to make a conclusion and arrive at the verdict. As for overwhelming circumstantial evidence, it may present the last fact that is necessary to prove the suspect’s implication in a discussed crime. Nevertheless, it is a common situation that indirect evidence is not strong enough to be used alone. At the same time, there were a few famous cases when only indirect evidence was used and it was considered quite strong to allow to pass a sentence to criminals. In general, circumstantial evidence may be enough for a conviction if there are a lot of evidentiary items proving the same fact. If the most probable explanation of these facts is suspect’s implication in a crime, it can be enough for a conviction but such cases do not occur very often.
References
Anderson, J., & Hopkins, A. (2014). Uniform evidence law guidebook. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ashworth, A., & Horder, J. (2013). Principles of criminal law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Gardner, T. J., & Anderson, T. M. (2014). Criminal evidence: Principles and cases. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Lilly, G., Capra, D., & Saltzburg, S. (2015). Principles of evidence. St. Paul, MN: West Academic.
Menaker, T. A., Campbell, B. A., & Wells, W. (2016). The use of forensic evidence in sexual assault investigations: Perceptions of sex crimes investigators. Violence against Women, 23(4), 399-421.
Ver Steegh, N. (2016). Ten steps for presenting evidence in court. Web.