What Are the Different Types of Direct Evidence?

Symmetry of direct evidence, "indirect evidence". Refers to evidence that can directly and directly explain the main facts of a case. The main facts of the case refer to whether the defendant has committed a criminal act in criminal proceedings and the facts of the legal relationship of the parties in civil and administrative proceedings. The criminal defendant's confession to the crime, the victim's or witness's statement and testimony of the defendant's crime, the civil defendant's recognition of the facts brought by the plaintiff, and the records of the civil dispute facts in the documentary evidence are direct evidence. The use of direct evidence to prove the main facts of a case is relatively simple, but whether the direct evidence itself is true and reliable needs other evidence to verify. In judicial practice, the direct evidence and indirect evidence are usually coordinated with each other to confirm the case. ^[1]

Direct evidence

First, a single piece of evidence

The direct relationship between the direct evidence and the main facts of the case is direct. A single direct evidence may not depend on other evidence, and it can prove the main facts of the case in a direct proof manner. Proof of the main facts of the case by indirect evidence must be combined with other evidence.

1. The direct relationship of the evidence to the main facts of the case is straightforward

Direct evidence can directly prove the main facts of the case, that is, it can directly prove the main facts of the case alone. The direct evidence to prove the main facts of the case does not need to go through any intermediate links, and the main facts of the case can be intuitively specified without the need for logical reasoning with other evidence. Therefore, the method of using direct evidence to determine the facts of the case is simpler, less difficult, and easy to use It is relatively convenient. As long as the verification is true, it can be used as the main basis for determining the facts of the case. The work to be done is to find out other secondary facts and circumstances, making the process of certification relatively simple and easy. The direct proof of the main facts of the case is the prominent features and advantages of direct evidence. It should be noted, however, that the range of circumstances that can be proved by different direct evidences is not exactly the same, and some have a large scope and some have a small scope. E.g,

The direct relationship between the direct evidence and the main facts of the case is straightforward. Once solid direct evidence is collected, the main facts of the case can be proved. Therefore, in judicial and law enforcement practice, we must attach importance to the collection and use of direct evidence, and give full play to its direct proof of the main facts of the case in order to quickly and timely identify the facts of the case and improve the efficiency of litigation. In order to ensure the proving value of direct evidence and give full play to the role of direct evidence in proving the main facts of the case, the following rules should be observed when using direct evidence:

The difference between direct evidence and indirect evidence

According to the different relationship between the evidence and the main facts of the case, the evidence can be divided into direct evidence and indirect evidence. The main fact of a criminal case is whether the criminal suspect or the defendant has committed a crime, that is, "

According to the difference between the evidence and the facts to be proved, it is divided into direct evidence and indirect evidence. Direct evidence refers to evidence that is directly related to the facts to be proved and can directly directly prove the facts to be proved. Indirect evidence refers to the evidence that has an indirect connection with the facts to be proved and cannot directly prove the facts to be proved.

The division of direct evidence and indirect evidence is relative, and is based on the same object of proof. Therefore, direct evidence and indirect evidence are not absolute. In trial practice, indirect evidence is not as convenient as direct evidence because it has no direct relationship with the object of proof. However, the role of indirect evidence cannot be underestimated.

First of all, due to the complexity of the case, in order to avoid the court finding that it is not beneficial to them, they often hide the true situation and direct evidence of the case, making it difficult for the other party and the case handler to find the direct evidence at first. Indirect evidence, investigation and research gradually became clear, and finally reached the purpose of understanding the truth of civil cases. Therefore, indirect evidence can be used as a guide to investigate the entire case.

Second, indirect evidence can identify the authenticity of direct evidence. Some direct evidence may be true and some may be forged materials. Therefore, these evidences must be identified by combining all the evidence materials in the whole case, and the use of indirect evidence is an important means of identifying direct evidence. Based on indirect evidence, people can determine empirically whether the facts of the case have occurred, changed and eliminated, and indirect evidence can also affect the evidentiary power of direct evidence.

Third, the direct and indirect evidence's reflection on the authenticity of the case are conditional, approximate and relative, both of which have certain limitations. The combined force of several indirect evidence can be equivalent to or even exceed Probative power of a direct evidence. Therefore, in proving the facts of the case, indirect evidence is a powerful assistant and reliable supporting evidence of direct evidence.

As indirect evidence proves the facts of the case indirectly, this determines that the use of indirect evidence is more difficult and more complicated. The parties and case handlers are required to be more careful when providing, reviewing, judging and using indirect evidence.

First of all, it should be noted that in the use of indirect evidence to prove the facts of the case, there must be a sufficient number of evidence to form a complete and strict proof chain, and this proof chain is reasonable and impeccable.

Secondly, it should be noted that the facts proved by the indirect evidence must be intrinsically related to the case itself. If there is no intrinsic correlation, it cannot be the indirect evidence of the case.

Third, it should be noted that the indirect evidence must be connected and coordinated, and all are confirmed around a main fact in the case; if there is a contradiction between indirect evidence that cannot be ruled out, the facts of the case cannot be determined.

Fourth, we should pay attention to conducting comprehensive analysis and research, which can not only confirm the facts of the case from the front, but also exclude false elements from the negative, so as to draw reliable conclusions.