Direct evidence proves a fact without requiring inference or presumption

Evidence

Direct evidence is said to be evidence which if believed proves the existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption; while circumstantial evidence is evidence which, without going directly to prove the existence of a fact, gives rise to a logical inference that such fact does exist. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 231

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 231
• XREF: connects to: Circumstantial evidence cannot support legal liability when resting entirely on speculation — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 237; Not all defendant admissions qualify as direct evidence of a crime — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 232; Factual propositions cannot be sustained merely by citing negative evidence — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 902 (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• Not all defendant admissions qualify as direct evidence of a crime #expands (0.80) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 232
• Circumstantial evidence cannot support legal liability when resting entirely on speculation #qualifies (0.75) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 237