EVIDENCE
Go to Oyez
Direct evidence vs. circumstantial evidence
Direct evidence is evidence which supports a particular point-of-view, "without inference or presumption. An example of this is the testimony of a witness who saw the knife being used to commit a crime by the defendant" (Direct evidence, 2012, Probable Cause). In the United States vs. Alvarez, the defendant Alvarez, while attending a meeting of Three Valleys Water District Board of Directors claimed in public to have been a member of the U.S. Marines and to have received the Congressional Medal of Honor. However, "the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 makes it a crime to falsely claim receipt of military decorations or medals. Mr. Alvarez was charged in the Central District of California with two counts of falsely representing that he had been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor in violation the Stolen Valor Act of 2005" (United States vs. Alvarez, 2012, Oyez).
Alvarez appealed the decision, and "moved to dismiss on the grounds that the statute violated his First Amendment right to free speech" (United States vs. Alvarez, 2012, Oyez). Alvarez could not deny the weight of the direct evidence -- he had openly lied. "The district court denied Alvarez's motion to dismiss. The respondent thereafter pleaded guilty, but reserved his right to appeal" (United States vs. Alvarez, 2012, Oyez). This case is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court and is being argued upon the constitutionality of The Stolen Valor Act of 2005. There is no question Alvarez is in violation of the terms of the Act, given the direct evidence against him. The question is whether the Act itself is constitutional.
Circumstantial evidence, in contrast, is when "this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from…
