Legal Definitions - circumstantial evidence

Circumstantial evidence refers to indirect evidence that does not directly prove a fact in question but suggests its existence through a logical inference. Unlike direct evidence, which immediately establishes a fact (e.g., a witness seeing an event happen), circumstantial evidence requires a jury or judge to draw additional reasonable conclusions based on a series of related facts to support a claim.

Here are some examples to illustrate how circumstantial evidence works:

• Theft of a Valuable Item:

  Imagine a rare antique vase goes missing from a museum exhibit. There were no security cameras directly showing someone taking the vase. However, security footage shows a particular individual lingering near the exhibit shortly before the disappearance, and then quickly exiting the museum. Later, the same individual is found to be in possession of an identical rare antique vase, which they cannot credibly explain acquiring.

  How it illustrates the term: No one directly witnessed this person stealing the vase. The evidence—the individual's suspicious presence, their hasty departure, and their subsequent unexplained possession of the item—are all circumstances that, when considered together, lead to the logical inference that this individual stole the vase.

• Determining the Cause of a Fire:

  Consider a house that burns down completely. There were no witnesses who saw how the fire started. However, fire investigators discover multiple points of origin for the fire, which is highly unusual for an accidental blaze. They also find traces of an accelerant, like gasoline, in the debris. Furthermore, the homeowner had recently increased their fire insurance policy significantly and was known to be experiencing severe financial difficulties.

  How it illustrates the term: No one directly observed the homeowner setting the fire. Instead, the evidence—multiple fire origins, the presence of an accelerant, increased insurance, and financial troubles—are all circumstances that collectively suggest, through logical inference, that the fire was intentionally set, possibly by the homeowner for financial gain.