Is eyewitness testimony considered circumstantial evidence?

Question

For a paper I'm writing; if, for example, the only evidence against a defendant is one eyewitness testimony, and there is no physical evidence linking them to the crime, is that enough to convict someone? Or must there be physical evidence to go along with the testimony? Is eyewitness testimony considered circumstantial evidence if there is no physical evidence to go along with it?

Answer 1

Could be a tricky question because, technically, eyewitness evidence is DIRECT evidence in which a person will state what he or she saw, as opposed to circumstantial evidence where the jury would need to draw an inference from the circumstances to determine the facts (not including the veracity or reliability of the witness).

However, at the moment a witness is seeing something, there are no "circumstances" to consider, other than the quality of the view. After the criminal flees, infinite circumstances arise: memory fades, police pick up the wrong guy and show him to the eyewitness (tainted memory), other eyewitnesses may have different descriptions of the same person, the witness becomes confused in court because the suspect/defendant is cleaned up and wearing a suit rather than whatever he or she was wearing during the crime, etc.

Therefore, because the fact finder (jury/judge) must make the inference that the eyewitness is reliable at the time of trial, and has identified the suspect soon after the crime, and again identified the same person at trial, it could be considered circumstantial.

Answer 2

Depends.  

If someone robbed a bank and an eyewitness saw the person run out of the bank with a bag of money.  That would be enough.

If someone saw a person, at a distance, and not sure what the person looked like, but had a general description that fit the defendant, then that would be circumstantial.

Edit:  I would say my top scenario would be rare.  The second is usually the case.  Police and prosecutors do like to have fingerprints, personal items, etc. that can be tied back to a defendant.  I would say eyewitnesses can be mistaken unless there is a clear view of someone, without distractions.

Answer 3

Depends on a lot of things.  Like what the poster above said.  Or if the eyewitness is being completely honest or not.