What type of evidence is contrasted with "direct evidence"?

Circumstantial evidence is contrasted with direct evidence because it relies on inference to establish a fact, rather than providing direct proof. Direct evidence offers clear and straightforward proof of a fact, such as eyewitness testimony about an event they observed. In contrast, circumstantial evidence consists of details and circumstances that suggest a particular conclusion; it requires reasoning to connect the evidence to the assertion being made.

For instance, if a witness sees a person commit a crime, that is direct evidence. However, if a person is found near the scene of a crime with no direct witnesses, any evidence pointing to their potential involvement would be circumstantial, such as fingerprints, DNA, or motive established by their actions leading up to the crime.

Understanding the distinction between these types of evidence is crucial, particularly in legal contexts, where the strength of the evidence can influence the outcomes of cases.