Direct evidence can prove a fact all by itself and does not need backup information to refer to. When using direct evidence, presumptions are not required. One example of direct evidence is the testimony of a witness who saw a crime take place. Although this oral evidence would be secondary in nature, meaning a case could not rest on just it alone, it is also direct evidence, meaning the lawyer does not necessarily need to provide other evidence to back it up. Direct evidence often is based on information gathered from a witness’s five senses.
The following answers are incorrect:
Circumstantial evidence. Is incorrect because Circumstantial evidence can prove an intermediate fact that can then be used to deduce or assume the existence of another fact.
Conclusive evidence. Is incorrect because Conclusive evidence is irrefutable and cannot be contradicted. Conclusive evidence is very strong all by itself and does not require corroboration.
Corroborative evidence. Is incorrect because Corroborative evidence is supporting evidence used to help prove an idea or point. It cannot stand on its own, but is used as a supplementary tool to help prove a primary piece of evidence.
Contribute your Thoughts:
Chosen Answer:
This is a voting comment (?). You can switch to a simple comment. It is better to Upvote an existing comment if you don't have anything to add.
Submit