People who are yet to be proven guilty and are at court are usually held at pre-trail custody as they await their trial. The International Criminal Court provides a legal basis for agencies and statues to criminalize crimes committed against humanity and genocide worldwide. This has been as a result of pressure to recognize the role and wrongs of states on crimes during warfare and conflict (Pakes, 2019). One of the cons of circumstantial evidence is that prosecutors can use the evidence obtained by private parties without search warranties, a probable cause or evidence obtained from questioning a defendant without their lawyer present.
One of the pros of direct evidence is that it is evidence that is reliable as it is based on eyewitness testimony. Direct evidence introduced during a trial, if believed by the jury or judge, then it is considered as a fact and this may work against a defendant who may actually be innocent (Pakes, 2019). Additionally, defendant’s testimony at trial may be dwindled when the police present evidence that is illegally obtained which is always admissible. During proceedings in International Courts, prosecutors may use illegally obtained evidence by police to keep the defendant off the stand and the judge can find such evidence as harmless error provided that there are other substantial evidences that prove guilt (Frace, 1990).
The case of United States versus Gilbert was circumstantial as the police did not have probable cause to make an arrest. The murder case of Elodie Kulik in France was argued using direct evidence where semen was discovered from the murder victim and that was further confirmed through conducting DNA. In addition, direct evidence shall be presented during trial as there were eyewitnesses in regards to the high profile case of George Floyd.