Witness testimony is not necessarily direct evidence. If the witness testimony can directly prove the main facts of the case, it belongs to direct evidence, otherwise it does not belong to direct evidence.
The so-called direct evidence is the evidence directly related to the main facts of the case, that is, the evidence that can directly prove the main facts of the case. The so-called indirect evidence refers to the evidence that is indirectly related to the facts of the case to be proved. It cannot directly prove the facts of the case alone, and it needs to be combined with other evidence to prove the facts of the case. Indirect evidence is also called indirect evidence. The so-called main facts of a case are the facts that are of key significance to the determination of a case dispute or the settlement of a lawsuit dispute. In different kinds of litigation, the main facts of the case are also different. The main fact of a civil case is the fact that the disputed civil legal relationship between civil parties occurs, changes and disappears; The main fact of administrative litigation cases is whether the specific administrative act of administrative organs exists and is legal; In criminal proceedings, the main facts of a case refer to the relevant facts about whether the criminal suspect or defendant has committed the alleged criminal act. The key to distinguish whether a witness's testimony is direct evidence or indirect evidence is to see the probative force of the evidence and whether it can directly prove the facts of the case.
What are the criteria for dividing direct evidence and indirect evidence?
divide
The standard of direct evidence and indirect evidence is the correlation between evidence and the main facts of a case, or the probative nature of evidence and the main facts of a case. All the evidence is related, but in different ways. The connection between direct evidence and the main facts of the case is direct and there is no intermediate link. The connection between indirect evidence and the main facts of the case is indirect and connected by other evidence. All evidence has the function of proof, but the nature of proof is different. Direct evidence is to directly prove the main facts of a case, that is, it can directly prove the main facts of a case in one step without relying on other evidence. The proof of indirect evidence is indirect, that is, it must be linked with other evidence, and it is often necessary to prove the main facts of the case through some inference.
Indirect evidence cannot independently and directly prove the main facts of the case, but it can independently and directly prove a plot or fragment in the facts of the case. That is to say, indirect evidence is indirect in proving the main facts of the case, but it may be direct in proving a plot or fragment in the facts of the case. It can be seen that the key to distinguish direct evidence from indirect evidence lies in clarifying what is the main fact of the case.
The so-called main facts of a case are the facts that are of key significance to the determination of a case dispute or the settlement of a lawsuit dispute. In different kinds of litigation, the main facts of the case are also different. The main fact of a civil case is the fact that the disputed civil legal relationship between civil parties occurs, changes and disappears; The main fact of administrative litigation cases is whether the specific administrative act of administrative organs exists and is legal; In criminal proceedings, the main facts of a case refer to the relevant facts about whether the criminal suspect or defendant has committed the alleged criminal act.
As can be seen from the above, witness testimony can be either direct evidence or indirect evidence. If your question is complicated, you are welcome to provide online lawyer consultation service.