What Are the Different Types of Direct Evidence?

Jessica Ellis
Jessica Ellis

In law, direct evidence is that which proves or disproves innocence without requiring inference on the part of the judge or jury. There are several different types of direct evidence, including witness testimony, audio or video recordings, and documentation. Some forms of evidence, such as DNA samples, may be considered direct evidence only in certain cases.

A witness who testifies under oath to personally seeing an event is giving direct evidence.
A witness who testifies under oath to personally seeing an event is giving direct evidence.

Eyewitness testimony is one of the most common types of direct evidence. If a witness sees or hears a criminal act, he can relate the events to the best of his ability. In general, courts assume that a witness is an objective party who can be relied upon to relate the events as they happened, without requiring the court to make an inference as to what happened. Visual testimony from a witness, such as watching the defendant shoot a victim, is usually considered the most reliable form of direct evidence. If a witness only hears a gunshot, he or she cannot directly testify as to who shot the gun, and therefore may be giving circumstantial, rather than direct, evidence.

Direct evidence includes eyewitness testimony.
Direct evidence includes eyewitness testimony.

Though witness testimony is one of the most frequently used types of direct evidence, it is not always fully reliable. Witnesses may have biases that can affect their testimony, or may have difficulty remembering the exact sequence of events due to stress or shock. Judges and juries must determine the reliability and objectivity of the witness when considering how to weigh direct evidence from an eyewitness.

More reliable forms of direct evidence include audio and video recordings. Since a tape recorder or video camera cannot have a bias, the objectivity of this type of evidence is usually unquestionable. Surveillance tapes, wiretap recordings, and even cell phone recordings can all serve as a direct form of objective evidence that establishes what actually happened during a crime. In some cases, however, recordings may be inadmissible as evidence if they are obtained illegally; for instance, in California, it is sometimes illegal to make a recording of a person without his or her knowledge. In order to make sure that recordings can be used, lawyers and legal officials must take care to follow all applicable laws of evidence gathering.

Documentation used as direct evidence might include emails, letters, or diary entries. These are generally only considered direct if they contain the actual crime, such as an email that includes death threats. If a perpetrator confesses his or her crimes via written correspondence, or a witness details an account of a crime in writing, it may also be considered a form of factual evidence.

In paternity cases, DNA evidence can serve as a form of direct, factual evidence. DNA is widely considered a reliable method of establishing paternity, and thus does not merely infer that a child is related by blood to a father or mother, but serves as objective proof of the fact. In many criminal cases, however, DNA evidence such as fingerprints or blood matches, is considered circumstantial. While it may prove that a person was present at a crime scene, it does not objectively show whether or not the person in question committed a crime.

DNA may be considered direct evidence, but only in certain cases.
DNA may be considered direct evidence, but only in certain cases.
Jessica Ellis
Jessica Ellis

With a B.A. in theater from UCLA and a graduate degree in screenwriting from the American Film Institute, Jessica is passionate about drama and film. She has many other interests, and enjoys learning and writing about a wide range of topics in her role as a wiseGEEK writer.

You might also Like

Readers Also Love

Discussion Comments


@candyquilty- I don't think that happens frequently because witnesses are usually people who are not closely connected with the victim or suspect. Usually it's a random passerby or perhaps a neighbor. And if a witness has come forth and agreed to testify for the benefit of the case, it's unlikely that this witness has an ulterior motive or is trying to manipulate the case in some way.

There can be situations where witnesses may be pressured or threatened to testify in a certain way. But this is usually not a problem in countries like the US where there are witness protection programs and other mechanisms to protect witnesses who are important for a case.

Also, giving false statements to court or pressuring someone to testify a certain way are serious punishable crimes. And if a court feels that there is false testimony or pressuring of witnesses, such evidence will not be admissible to court.


Witness testimony is considered direct evidence and this type of evidence can have a huge impact on the outcome of a case. It can really be the breaking point for a case where there isn't a lot of evidence to begin with. But what if a witness lies?


When I went to the local police to report harassment, I was asked to bring evidence such as emails or messages. I had erased some of the emails, but thankfully still had several that were evidence of the harassment. I took it to the police department and they took action with that evidence. I was also told to never erase messages and emails when something like this happens again.

Sometimes, when we want to ignore a problem or a person, we want to delete messages from them. But we should always save them in case things get out of hand and evidence is required to report to the authorities. It's not possible to know whether someone is inclined to harassment or something worse. So it's a good idea to consider all possibilities and keep what could be evidence.

Post your comments
Forgot password?