Evidence Go to Oyez Direct Evidence vs.

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).

Mr. 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 the existence of the circumstantial evidence" (Circumstantial evidence, 2012, West's Encyclopedia of American Law). In The United States v. Jones, prosecutors sought to bring charges against the defendant Jones because of his associations with known drug dealers. However, the case was ultimately dismissed upon appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The police had secretly attached a GPS device to the defendant's vehicle without obtaining a warrant to track his movements. Jones appealed his conviction on conspiracy charges based upon the argument that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. The Supreme Court agreed: "installation of a GPS tracking device on Jones' vehicle, without a warrant, constituted an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment. The Court rejected the government's argument that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a person's movement on public thoroughfares and emphasized that the Fourth Amendment provided some protection for trespass onto personal property" (The United States v. Jones, 2012, Oyez).