Which type of evidence requires inference from a fact that has been proven in court?

Circumstantial evidence is considered to require inference from a fact that has been proven in court because it relies on a relationship or association between the evidence and the conclusion that is sought to be established. For instance, if a person is seen leaving the vicinity of a crime scene shortly after the crime has been committed, this observation alone does not directly prove that the individual committed the crime. Instead, it suggests a possible connection that must be inferred alongside other supporting facts or evidence.

In contrast, direct evidence speaks to an event or fact needing no inference, such as eyewitness testimony confirming that an individual was seen committing the act. Physical evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA, connects directly to the crime without requiring inference. Testimonial evidence, while valuable, differs as it often relies on a person's account of what they observed and can be directly supportive rather than requiring inference from other facts. Thus, circumstantial evidence uniquely calls for drawing conclusions based on implications rather than explicit proof.