3d Cir. Model Jury Instr. (Criminal) 1.09

Two types of evidence may be used in this trial, direct evidence and

circumstantial (or indirect) evidence. You may use both types of evidence in

reaching your verdict.

Direct evidence is simply evidence which, if believed, directly proves a fact.

An example of "direct evidence" occurs when a witness testifies about something

the witness knows from his or her own senses - something the witness has seen,

touched, heard, or smelled.

“Circumstantial evidence" is evidence which, if believed, indirectly proves

a fact. It is evidence that proves one or more facts from which you could find or

infer the existence of some other fact or facts. An inference is simply a deduction

or conclusion that reason, experience, and common sense lead you to make from

the evidence. An inference is not a suspicion or a guess. It is a reasoned, logical

decision to find that a disputed fact exists on the basis of another fact.

For example, if a witness testified that she had been outside and saw that it

was raining, that testimony would be direct evidence that it was raining. On the

other hand, if a witness testified that she saw someone walk in from outside

wearing a wet raincoat and carrying a wet umbrella, that testimony would be

circumstantial evidence that it was raining, from which you could infer that it was

raining. You would not have to find that it was raining, but you could.

Sometimes different inferences may be drawn from the same set of facts.

The government may ask you to draw one inference, and the defense may ask you

31

to draw another. You, and you alone, must decide what inferences you will draw

based on all the evidence.

You should consider all the evidence that is presented in this trial, direct

and circumstantial. The law makes no distinction between the weight that you

should give to either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you are to decide

how much weight to give any evidence.