What Is Real, or Physical, Evidence? Describe.
Real or physical evidence refers to tangible objects that can be used to tie a suspect to a crime on their own without the need to support it with other testimony or evidence. For an object to qualify as real evidence, it must have played a direct role in the crime (Armenta, 2017). For instance, a gun used to murder the victim in a murder trial or an object that was stolen in a theft incident. Real evidence is crucial to a case because it proves direct fault and in many cases, a trial cannot proceed without it. For instance, even if a person was suspected of murder, but the body could not be found, there may not be any way to prove that they were involved.
Provide 3 examples of a piece of real evidence.
Examples of this type of evidence include DNA left on a crime scene, weapons used in the crime, and clothe fibers from the suspect among others.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
What is the importance of physical or real evidence to the investigation? Explain.
Real evidence is used to prove a fact based on characteristics of all or part of the object presented. It can establish a theory of what happened during the crime and ties the suspect directly to the crime ( McShane, 2010) . For instance in a theft case, if the stolen jewelry was found in the suspect’s home and their DNA on it, this can be used to prove that the person took it. Physical evidence can also be used to disprove a fact and thus prevent the conviction of the wrong person ( McShane, 2010) . For example in a rape case, even if the victim testifies against the defendant, if the DNA involved does not match them the suspect cannot have possibly committed the crime. Maybe they resemble the real perpetrator.
Physical evidence can also be used to identify the criminal such as when a weapon used in a murder is registered to someone. It can also be used to corroborate other forms of evidence such as testimony or a video recording. It can also aid in interrogations where it can be used to coerce answers from an uncooperative suspect (Armenta, 2017). Once confronted with the real evidence, they may feel compelled to admit involvement or give other relevant information that point to the real criminal. Real evidence is therefore crucial in criminal cases because it narrows down the possibilities and reinforces the truthfulness of other forms of evidence that can easily be doctored such as recordings and eyewitness testimonies ( McShane, 2010) . It ensures that there is no bias as it is independent of subjective opinions of anyone involved in a case. However, it is essential to make sure that physical evidence is appropriately stored to avoid contamination for it to be admissible in court.
What are Two Methods of Demonstrative Evidence Used to Clarify the Issues Surrounding Actions or Lack of Actions at a Crime Scene for a Judge or Jury? Explain.
Demonstrative evidence is easily confused with real evidence because both of them are physical objects. However, demonstrative evidence constitutes items such as charts, diagrams or recordings that can be used to illustrate a fact or a theory (Lucenti, 2016). For instance, in a theft case, a video that shows a character similar to the suspect committing the crime can be described as demonstrative evidence. It is used to support witness testimonies, and should not deviate from what they purport. This type of evidence is often used by expert witnesses to break down the facts of the case into forms that the judge or jury can easily understand.
How would they help the triers of fact to better understand the evidence? Explain
Demonstrative evidence can be used to show how a crime occurred or might have happened by placing significant details together to create a scenario. It can also display the damages inflicted on the victim during the crime, and this can be used to convict the criminal. Demonstrative evidence also shows the extent to which other evidence can be relied upon since. If the demonstrative evidence does not align with the testimony, it can prevent an innocent person from being convicted and even point to the real criminal (Lucenti, 2016).
What is the Difference between Direct Evidence and Circumstantial Evidence? Explain.
Direct evidence asserts a fact or theory during a trial without creating any assumptions to connect the evidence to the truth. It therefore proves or disproves facts directly (Tandon, 2017). For instance when the DNA of the suspect matches the one collected from the victim in a rape case, then that is an example of direct evidence. No reasoning is required to connect a suspect in the crime in such a situation.
In contrast, circumstantial evidence cannot be used to prove a fact on its own without making inferences or assumptions that tie a suspect to a crime. It has to be considered together with other pieces of evidence to make this connection (Tandon, 2017). For instance, if an eyewitness testifies seeing the suspect arguing with the victim right before he was murdered but that they did not particularly see the suspect commit the crime, this is circumstantial or indirect evidence. In this example, to conclude that the suspect mentioned above is the criminal, one has to assume that the argument became a motive for murder and that the suspect was the last person to see the victim alive to conclude that this is indeed the criminal.
Circumstantial evidence is often used to strengthen a case by filling the gaps in the direct evidence (Tandon, 2017). For instance, many motives for crime are tied to this type of evidence, and they can be used to catch the real perpetrator. In the example used above, the suspect could be convicted because the prosecution believes that their argument with a victim was a motive. Other pieces of evidence such as DNA or a murder weapon could even point to the suspect. However, if the suspect can prove that the dispute was resolved or that he has an airtight alibi, this can break down a case. Therefore direct and circumstantial evidence can be equally significant in solving cases and avoiding wrongful convictions (Tandon, 2017).
What is the Concept of Overwhelming Circumstantial Evidence? Explain.
Overwhelming circumstantial evidence refers to when the inferences drawn from such evidence is so convincing that no other conclusion can be drawn (Yeshion, n.d.). For instance, a man suspected of theft may have been seen by eyewitnesses in the vicinity of the crime. They could also have bought gas a few blocks from the crime scene, owns clothes similar to the ones worn by the criminal shown on surveillance footage, and has no alternative alibi or explanation for these occurrences. This is considered as too much of a coincidence to ignore. Therefore, since the evidence does not logically point to anything different and it can be proven without a reasonable doubt, it is referred to as overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
Can it be enough for a conviction? Why or why not?
Whether or not overwhelming circumstantial evidence can be used to convict a criminal depends on the type of case it is. First, it must be the only possible inference that the jury or judge can make the evidence (Tandon, 2017; Yeshion, n.d.). Achieving this level of certainty can be however tricky because in many cases all that is needed to dismantle circumstantial evidence is to provide an alternative theory for the evidence. For instance, in the example above, the suspect can offer the alternative explanation that his cousin had borrowed his car and credit card that night, and since the said cousin was living with the suspect temporarily, he also took some of his clothes. This alternative theory creates reasonable doubt. However, numerous cases have been convicted based solely on overwhelming circumstantial evidence when the inferences drawn were indubitable (Yeshion, n.d.).
References
Armenta, T. (2017, June 12). Forensic | The Importance of Physical Evidence: What, Why, How. Forensic Training . Retrieved from https://forensictrainingunlimited.teachable.com/blog/934406/importance-of-physical-evidence
Lucenti, D. (2016, August 8). Demonstrative Evidence - Powerful Persuader. Crime Scene Forensics . Retrieved from https://www.dooleylucenti.ca/demonstrative-evidence-powerful-persuader/
McShane, J. J. (2010, April 20). Physical evidence is often the most important evidence. The Truth About Forensic Science . Retrieved from https://www.thetruthaboutforensicscience.com/physical-evidence-is-often-the-most-important-evidence/
Tandon, Y. (2017, December 20). The Distinction Between Direct and Circumstantial Evidence. iPleaders . Retrieved from https://blog.ipleaders.in/direct-evidence/
Yeshion, T. (n.d.). The myths of circumstantial evidence. The Forensic Teacher Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.theforensicteacher.com/Evidence.html
