Which of the following proves or disproves a specific act through oral testimony based on information gathered through the witness's five senses?
Click on the arrows to vote for the correct answer
A. B. C. D.A.
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 witnesss 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.
The answer to this question is A. Direct evidence.
Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves or disproves a specific fact. It is also referred to as "testimonial evidence" because it usually comes in the form of oral testimony from a witness.
Direct evidence is based on what the witness personally saw, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched. In other words, it is based on the witness's five senses. For example, if a witness saw someone commit a crime, their testimony about what they saw would be considered direct evidence.
On the other hand, circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. It is based on indirect observations rather than direct personal knowledge. For example, if a witness saw someone running away from a crime scene with a bloody knife, but did not actually see them commit the crime, their testimony would be considered circumstantial evidence.
Conclusive evidence is evidence that is so strong that it cannot be contradicted or disputed. It is very rare for evidence to be considered conclusive, as there is almost always some possibility of error or alternative explanation.
Corroborative evidence is evidence that supports or confirms other evidence. It is not necessarily direct evidence, but it can be used to strengthen the credibility of other evidence. For example, if two witnesses provide different accounts of an event, but physical evidence such as video footage or DNA testing supports one of the witnesses, the physical evidence would be considered corroborative evidence.
In summary, direct evidence is evidence that directly proves or disproves a fact through oral testimony based on the witness's five senses, making it the correct answer to this question.