Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
There are two types of evidence that you may consider in reaching your verdict—direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.
Direct evidence is evidence that proves a disputed fact directly. For example, where a witness testifies to what he or she saw, heard or did, that is called direct evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that tends to prove a disputed fact by proof of other facts. To give a simple example, you may remember the story of Robinson Crusoe, who was marooned on a deserted island. He spent years thinking he was alone, until one day, as he walked along the beach, he noticed large footprints in the sand. Because his feet were too small to have made them, Robinson concluded that somebody else must have left the footprints, even though he had not seen anyone else—in other words, he had no direct evidence of that fact. But, it would be reasonable for him to conclude from the footprints on the beach that, in fact, he was not alone.
That is all there is to circumstantial evidence. Using your reason and experience, you infer from established facts the existence or the nonexistence of some other fact.
The law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is of no less value than direct evidence, and you can consider either or both, and can give them such weight as you conclude is warranted.
Inferences
In their arguments, the parties have asked you to infer, on the basis of your reason, experience, and common sense, from one or more established facts, the existence of some other fact. The process of drawing inferences from facts in evidence is not a matter of guesswork or speculation. An inference is a reasonable deduction or logical conclusion which you, the jury, are permitted to draw—but not required to draw—from the facts which have been established by either direct or circumstantial evidence. In drawing inferences, you should exercise your common sense.As with most general instructions, these seem to be mainstream and unobjectionable.
Circumstantial evidence plays a large role in crimes where mens rea is required, because that requires the jury to determine what was in the defendant's mind when he or she committed the actus reus. Unless the defendant admits the mens rea (unlikely if the defendant has not pled guilty), the jury must infer mens rea from the circumstantial evidence. The quantum of mens rea for tax crimes is willfulness -- specific intent to violate a know legal duty (often referred to as the Cheek standard of willfulness). (I set aside the possibility that conscious avoidance, however, nominated, may suffice, because that is a big issue I have discussed in various blogs before.)
I thought readers might find helpful several excerpts from my Federal Tax Crimes Book dealing with circumstantial evidence (footnotes omitted).
