What distinguishes direct evidence from circumstantial evidence?

Direct evidence is characterized by its ability to directly prove a fact without the need for any inference. A primary example of direct evidence is eyewitness testimony, where a person provides a firsthand account of an event they observed. This immediate connection to the fact in question allows the court to draw conclusions based solely on this testimony.

In contrast, circumstantial evidence does not provide an immediate link to a fact and instead requires a series of inferences to connect it to a conclusion. For example, if someone finds a person's fingerprints at a crime scene, this may suggest they were present, but it does not definitively prove that they committed a crime. Therefore, the distinction lies in the nature of the evidence: direct evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, offers a straightforward and clear connection to a fact, whereas circumstantial evidence relies on a web of implications and deductions to lead to a conclusion.