The ability to gather and analyze different types of evidence is one of the most important competencies for anyone who conducts investigations. There are many types of evidence that help the investigator make decisions during a case, even if they aren’t direct proof of an event or claim.
To download a quick reference to the types of evidence outlined in this article click on: Understanding Types of Evidence.
The first rule is that evidence must be relevant to the investigation. If it is not directly related to the case it isn’t relevant evidence. That said, there are many types of evidence that, while not admissible in court, can be valuable to an investigator trying to reach a conclusion in a workplace investigation or other non-criminal investigation. And even some evidence that is not admissible on its own may be admissible in conjunction with other types of evidence.
1. Analogical Evidence
While not a kind of evidence you’d use in court, this kind of evidence can be useful for increasing credibility by drawing parallels when there isn’t enough information to prove something in a workplace investigation. Analogical evidence uses a comparison of things that are similar to draw an analogy.
2. Anecdotal Evidence
Anecdotal evidence isn’t used in court, but can sometimes help in a workplace investigation to get a better picture of an issue. The biggest problem with this kind of evidence is that it is often “cherry picked” to present only anecdotes that support a particular conclusion. Consider it with skepticism, and in combination with other, more reliable, kinds of evidence.
4. Circumstantial Evidence
Also known as indirect evidence, this type of evidence is used to infer something based on a series of facts separate from the fact the argument is trying to prove. It requires a deduction of facts from other facts that can be proven and, while not considered to be strong evidence, it can be relevant in a workplace investigation, which has a different burden of proof than a criminal investigation.
Need a tool for tracking and reporting on your investigation and the evidence you collected? Download our free Investigation Report Template.
5. Demonstrative Evidence
An object or document is considered to be demonstrative evidence when it directly demonstrates a fact. It’s a common and reliable kind of evidence. Examples of this kind of evidence are photographs, video and audio recordings, charts, etc. In a workplace investigation, this could be an audio recording of someone’s harassing behavior or a photograph of offensive graffiti.
How to Record Digital Evidence with Camtasia Screencasting Software
7. Direct Evidence
The most powerful type of evidence, direct evidence requires no inference. The evidence alone is the proof. This could be the testimony of a witness who saw first-hand an incident of sexual harassment in the workplace.
8. Documentary Evidence
Most commonly considered to be written forms of proof, such as letters or wills, documentary evidence can also include other types of media, such as images, video or audio recordings, etc.
9. Exculpatory Evidence
This type of evidence can exonerate a defendant in a – usually criminal – case. Prosecutors and police are required to disclose to the defendant any exculpatory evidence they find or risk having the case dismissed.
11. Hearsay Evidence
Hearsay evidence consists of statements made by witnesses who are not present. While hearsay evidence is not admissible in court, it can be relevant and valuable in a workplace investigation where the burden of proof is less robust than in court.
13. Prima Facie Evidence
Meaning “on its first appearance” this is evidence presented before a trial that is enough to prove something until it is successfully disproved or rebutted at trial. This is also called “presumptive evidence”.
14. Statistical Evidence
Evidence that uses numbers (or statistics) to support a position is called statistical evidence. This type of evidence is based on research or polls.
15. Testimonial Evidence
One of the most common forms of evidence, this is either spoken or written evidence given by a witness under oath. It can be gathered in court, at a deposition or through an affidavit.
3. Character Evidence
This is a testimony or document that is used to help prove that someone acted in a particular way based on the person’s character. While this can’t be used to prove that a person’s behavior at a certain time was consistent with his or her character, it can be used in some workplace investigations to prove intent, motive, or opportunity.
6. Digital Evidence
Digital evidence can be any sort of digital file from an electronic source. This includes email, text messages, instant messages, files and documents extracted from hard drives, electronic financial transactions, audio files, video files. Digital evidence can be found on any server or device that stores data, including some lesser-known sources such as home video game consoles, GPS sport watches and internet-enabled devices used in home automation. Digital evidence is often found through internet searches using open source intelligence (OSINT).
OSINT is one of the most efficient ways to gather digital evidence online. Search online using this comprehensive link list ofOSINT tools and resources.
Challenges of digital evidence
Collecting digital evidence requires a skillset not always needed for physical evidence. There are many methods for extracting digital evidence from different devices and these methods, as well as the devices on which evidence is stored, change rapidly. Investigators need to either develope specific technical expertise or rely on experts to do the extraction for them.
Preserving digital evidence is also challenging because, unlike physical evidence, it can be altered or deleted remotely. Investigators need to be able to authenticate the evidence, and also provide documentation to prove its integrity.
10. Forensic Evidence
Forensic Evidence is scientific evidence, such as DNA, trace evidence, fingerprints or ballistics reports, and can provide proof to establish a person’s guilt or innocence. Forensic evidence is generally considered to be strong and reliable evidence and alongside helping to convict criminals, its role in exonerating the innocent has been well documented. The term “forensic” means “for the courts”. Its use in workplace investigations is generally limited to serious cases that may end up in court.
12. Physical Evidence
As would be expected, evidence that is in the form of a tangible object, such as a firearm, fingerprints, rope purportedly used to strangle someone, or tire casts from a crime scene, is considered to be physical evidence. Physical evidence is also known as “real” or “material” evidence. It can be presented in court as an exhibit of a physical object, captured in still or moving images, described in text, audio or video or referred to in documents.
1. Abregu M. 2001. Barricades or obstacles: the challenge of access to justice. In Comprehensive legal and judicial development: towards an agenda for a just and equitable society in the 21st century (ed. Puymbroeck R, editor. ), pp. 53–69. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction.
2. The Law Commission. 2009. The admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales: a new approach to the determination of evidentiary reliability, Consultation Paper No 190.
3. Morrison G. 2012. The likelihood-ratio framework and forensic evidence in court: a response toR v T. Int. J. Evid. Proof16, 1–29. (doi:10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.390)
4. Wheate R. 2010. The importance of DNA evidence to juries in criminal trials. Int. J. Evid. Proof14, 129–145. (doi:10.1350/ijep.2010.14.2.348)
5. Perlin M, Birgden A, Gledhill K. 2009. ‘The witness who saw/he left little doubt’. A comparative consideration of expert testimony in mental disability law cases in common and civil law systems. J. Invest. Psychol. Off. 6, 59–88. (doi:10.4306/pi.2009.6.2.59)
6. Kontorovich E, Friedman E. 2011. An economic analysis of fact witness payment. Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons, Paper 16 See http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=facultyworkingpapers (accessed 20 April 2015).
7. Gold A. 2002. Miscarriages of justice and the misuse of scientific evidence in criminal cases: ‘… they go together like a horse and carriage’. ISRCL Papers See http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/Gold.pdf (accessed 20 April 2015).
8. Saks M, Koehler J. 2008. The individualization fallacy in forensic science evidence. Vand. Law Rev.61, 199–219.
9. Pardo M. 2010. Evidence theory and the NAS report on forensic science. Utah Law Rev.2010, 367–383.
10. Ward T. 2004. Experts, juries and witch-hunts: from Fitzjames Stephen to Angela Cannings. J. Law Soc.31, 369–386. (doi:10.1111/j.1467-6478.2004.00295.x)
11. National Research Council. 2011. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
12. Weizman E. 2011. The least of all possible evils: humanitarian violence from Arendt to Gaza. London, UK: Verso.
13. Robertson J. 2013. Understanding how forensic science may contribute to miscarriages of justice. Aust. J. Forensic Sci.45, 109–112. (doi:10.1080/00450618.2013.790477)
14. Redmayne M, Roberts P, Aitken C, Jackson G. 2011. Forensic science evidence in question. Crim. Law Rev.5, 347–356.
15. Rennison A. 2014. Future of forensic science in the United Kingdom’. In Advances in forensic human identification (eds Mallett X, Blythe T, Berry R, editors. ), pp. 429–438. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
16. The Law Commission. 2011. Expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. London: Law Commission; (accessed 20 April 2015).
17. Innocence Project 2015. Unvalidated or improper forensic science See www.innocenceproject.org/causes-wrongful-conviction/unvalidated-or-improper-forensic-science (accessed 10 May 2015).
18. Garrett BL, Neufeld PJ. 2009. Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions. Va. Law Rev.95, 1–97.
19. Crime Lab Report. The Innocence audit. See http://www.crimelabreport.com/innocenceaudit (accessed 11 May 2015).
20. Genn D. 2013. Getting to the truth: experts and judges in the ‘hot tub’. Civ. Justice Q.32, 275–299.
21. Danaher J. 2011. Blind expertise and the problem of scientific evidence. Int. J. Evid. Proof15, 207–231. (doi:10.1350/ijep.2011.15.3.378)
22. Edmond G. 2008. Secrets of the ‘hot tub’: expert witnesses, concurrent evidence and judge-led law reform in Australia. Civ. Justice Q.27, 51–82.
23. Gould JB, Carrano J, Leo R. 2013. Predicting erroneous convictions: a social science approach to miscarriages of justice See https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/241389.pdf (accessed 20 April 2015).
24. Leo R. 2005. Rethinking the study of miscarriages of justice: developing a criminology of wrongful convictions. J. Contemp. Crim. Justice1, 201–223. (doi:10.1177/1043986205277477)
25. Rennison A. 2013. The performance of Bedfordshire Police and Key Forensic Services. Forensic Science Regulator See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/269835/beds_police_report.pdf (accessed 20 April 2015).
26. Rennison A. 2013. LGC Forensics. R v [Mr A] See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lgc-forensics-r-v-mr-a (accessed 15 April 2015).
27. Schauer F. 2010. Can bad science be good evidence? Neuroscience, lie detection and beyond. Cornell Law Rev.95, 1191–1220. [PubMed]
28. Brandl S. 2007. Criminal investigation, 2nd edn Princeton, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29. Aitken C, Taroni F. 2008. Fundamentals of statistical evidence: a primer for legal professionals. Int. J. Evid. Proof12, 181–207. (doi:10.1350/ijep.2008.12.3.296)
30. Ligertwood A, Edmond G. 2012. Expressing evaluative forensic science opinions in a court of law. Law Prob. Risk11, 289–302. (doi:10.1093/lpr/mgs016)
31. Edmond G, Kemp R, Porter G, Hamer D, Burton M, Biber K, San Roque M. 2010. Atkins v The Emperor: the ‘cautious’ use of unreliable ‘expert’ opinion. Int. J. Evid. Proof14, 146–166.
32. Association of Forensic Science Providers. 2009. Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion. Sci. Justice49, 161–164. (doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2009.07.004) [PubMed]
33. Faigman D. 2008. Anecdotal forensics, phrenology, and other abject lessons from the history of science. Hastings Law J. 59, 979–1000. See http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/867/ (accessed 15 April 2015).
34. Binnie I. 2011. Wrongful convictions and the magical aura of science in the courtroom. Judic. Rev.10, 141.
35. Brewis B, Stockdale M. 2013. Admissibility of low template DNA evidence. J. Crim. Law77, 115–118. (doi:10.1350/1740-5580-77.2.115)
36. Wilson A. 2009. Expert opinion evidence: the middle way. J. Crim. Law73, 430–450. (doi:10.1350/jcla.2009.73.5.592)
37. Ward T. 2013. Expert evidence and the Law Commission: implementation without legislation?Crim. Law Rev.7, 369–386.
38. Cole S, Roberts A. 2012. Certainty, individualisation and the subjective nature of fingerprint evidence. Crim. Law Rev.11, 824–849.
39. Jacobs S. 2015. Judge tosses out two types of DNA evidence used regularly in criminal cases. Daily News, 5 January 2015 (See http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/judge-tosses-types-dna-testing-article-1.2065795) (accessed 20 April 2015).
40. Bentley D, Lownds P. 2011. Low template DNA. Archbold Review 1. See https://archbolde-update.co.uk/PDF/2011/ArchR11_1_1-12.pdf (accessed 20 April 2015).
41. The Rt Hon the Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. 2014. The future of forensic science in criminal trials. See comment>https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/kalisher-lecture-expert-evidence-oct-14.pdf (accessed 20 April 2015).
42. Porter G. 2011. A new theoretical framework regarding the application and reliability of photographic evidence. Int. J. Evid. Proof15, 26–61. (doi:10.1350/ijep.2011.15.1.367)
43. Rennison A. 2012. Report into the circumstances of a complaint received from the Greater Manchester Police on 7 March 2012 regarding DNA evidence provided by LGC Forensics, Forensic Science Regulator. See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/118941/dna-contam-report.pdf (accessed 20 April 2015).
44. Yamashita AB. 2007. Forensic barefoot morphology comparison’. Can. J. Criminol. Crim.49.
45. Binnie I. 2007. Science in the courtroom: the mouse that roared. U. New Brunswick L. J.56, 307.
46. Gallop A. 2015. Gains, losses and ways to improve forensic science. Forensic Access. See http://www.forensic-access.co.uk/downloads/forensic-science-regulators-conference-march-2015.pdf (accessed 20 April 2015).
47. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA. 1998. A model for case assessment and interpretation. Sci. Justice38, 151–156. (doi:10.1016/S1355-0306(98)72099-4) [PubMed]
48. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA. 1998. A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Sci. Justice38, 231–239. (doi:10.1016/S1355-0306(98)72117-3)
49. Evett IW, Jackson G, Lambert JA. 2000. More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions. Sci. Justice40, 3–10. (doi:10.1016/S1355-0306(00)71926-5) [PubMed]
50. Evett IW, Jackson G, Lambert JA, McCrossan S. 2000. The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements. Sci. Justice40, 233–239. (doi:10.1016/S1355-0306(00)71993-9) [PubMed]
51. TJIN-A-TSOI, T.B.P.M. 2013. Trends, challenges and strategy in the Forensic Science Sector. The Netherlands: Forensic Institute.
52. Adams DE, Mabry JP, McCoy MR, Lord WD. 2013. Challenges for forensic science: new demands in today's world. Aust. J. Forensic Sci.45, 347–355. (doi:10.1080/00450618.2012.728246)