Where You Have Been
The average student spends
in importance for exam preparation
7.2
Introduction to Evidence
-
Segment ProgressBar
INTRODUCTION
Evidence is that which tends to establish a fact at trial. For a paralegal, there are two areas of application of evidence: Locating evidence (using investigative techniques or the discovery process) and using that evidence to locate other evidence. In other words, to expand your investigation.
Remember that just because a certain piece of evidence is not admissible, that does not make it worthless to the paralegal. That evidence may be able to lead to other evidence that would be admissible. In any case, it is the attorney's job to determine whether the evidence you have found is admissible, not yours.
Lecture Notes . . .
INTRODUCTION TO EVIDENCE
There are four types of evidence listed in this section: Oral, physical, direct, and circumstantial. (Physical evidence is also called tangible or demonstrative.) Think of them in pairs: Oral or physical, direct or circumstantial.
Once you understand these four types of evidence, you will also want to understand the following statement:
A single piece of evidence can be both direct and circumstantial. This will depend on the question being asked.
For example, a defendant's fingerprint on a murder weapon is both circumstantial and direct. It is circumstantial as to the defendant committing the murder. But it is direct as to whether the defendant touched the weapon. It depends on the question being asked.
If you understand that, you're in good shape!
Paralegal Perspective . . .
EVIDENCE
When investigating, don't fall into the trap of deciding that because a piece of evidence is circumstantial, it doesn't carry as much weight as direct. In fact, the law states that both direct and circumstantial evidence carry the same weight! (I know you don't believe it, but ask any trial attorney!) In fact, there are some instances where circumstantial may be preferred over direct evidence.
Direct evidence always relies on an individual's observation of an event. Of course, individuals are easy targets for a good trial attorney. All he or she has to do is place a 'reasonable doubt' in the mind of a juror or two. So he or she goes after the witness, hoping to place such doubt in the jury's mind.
But fingerprints on a weapon, which would be circumstantial as to a murder or assault, would be incredibly difficult to discredit. (After all, you can't cross examine a fingerprint!) So, in the hands of a good attorney, circumstantial may sometimes be more powerful than direct evidence.
Commonly Asked Questions . . .
If the tool below does not function properly in your browser, click here to open in a new window.
Answers to Exercise Questions
Check your answers for the exercise in the Textbook. Only look after you have attempted the exercise yourself.
Exercises
Introduction to Evidence
Evidence in General
Evidence: Direct or Circumstantial?