Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out. Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists. In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).
Reasonable doubt is tied into circumstantial evidence as that evidence relies on inference. It was put in place because the circumstantial evidence may not be enough to convict someone fairly. Reasonable doubt is described as the highest standard of proof used in court and means that a juror can find the defendant guilty of the crime to a moral certainty. Even when circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to convict or acquit, it can contribute to other decisions made about the case.
Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. For example, a witness saying that she saw a defendant stab a victim is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness saying that she saw a defendant enter a house, heard screaming, and saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife is circumstantial evidence. It is the need for inference, and not the obviousness of the fact inferred, that determines whether evidence is circumstantial.
Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence.
Cette page est générée automatiquement et peut contenir des informations qui ne sont pas correctes, complètes, à jour ou pertinentes par rapport à votre recherche. Il en va de même pour toutes les autres pages de ce site. Veillez à vérifier les informations auprès des sources officielles de l'EPFL.
On étudie des notions de topologie générale: unions et quotients d'espaces topologiques; on approfondit les notions de revêtements et de groupe fondamental,et d'attachements de cellules et on démontre
vignette|Police scientifique cherchant des empreintes digitales qui serviront de preuves En droit, une preuve est un élément qui permet à un tiers de s'assurer de la véracité d'un fait. Dans la plupart des législations pénales ou civiles, l'altération de preuves visant, soit à altérer, falsifier ou effacer des traces ou indices, soit d’ouvrir une fausse piste, constitue une infraction grave punie par la loi. Preuve en droit civil français Preuve en droit pénal français Preuve en droit civil québécois Charge
Une preuve, (en science ou en droit) est un fait ou un raisonnement propre à établir la vérité. Une preuve est associée à son niveau d'incertitude quand elle est utilisée. Les éléments inductifs et déductifs qui y sont attachés lui confèrent donc un certain niveau d'incertitude. L'évaluation intuitive de ce niveau détermine le degré de confiance qu'on peut apporter à la preuve. La plupart des preuves utilisées dans la vie courante sont communément admises comme étant dignes de confiance.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference. On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others.