Final answer:
Direct evidence can confirm a fact without inference, such as a security camera footage of a theft. circumstantial evidence requires inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact like fingerprints on a stolen car that suggest involvement.
Step-by-step explanation:
The difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is based on how each type of evidence supports a particular point in a legal context. Direct evidence can confirm a fact straightforwardly without the need for inference. For example, if a security camera records a person stealing a car, this footage would be considered direct evidence of theft.Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, requires inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. An example of circumstantial evidence would be finding someone's fingerprints on the door of a stolen car.
While the fingerprints themselves do not prove that the person stole the car, they suggest the person's involvement and, alongside other pieces of evidence, can be used to support a case that the individual was involved in the theft.