How does "direct evidence" differ from "circumstantial evidence"?

Direct evidence is defined as evidence that directly proves a fact without the need for additional reasoning or inference. For example, an eyewitness account of a crime provides direct evidence because it directly links the witness to the event being considered. This type of evidence stands on its own, as it straightforwardly supports a fact with no additional context or reasoning needed to interpret its meaning.

In contrast, circumstantial evidence relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion or fact. This means that while circumstantial evidence can strongly suggest a fact (such as fingerprints at a crime scene), it does not, by itself, prove that fact without further interpretation. Thus, the distinction lies in the direct nature of the evidence, where direct evidence can independently establish a fact, whereas circumstantial evidence requires a logical connection to substantiate a claim.