Also known as: direct vs. indirect distinction · direct-indirect distinction · direct evidence · indirect evidence · circumstantial evidence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An evidentiary distinction in the interpretation and reformation of donative documents that permits consideration of circumstantial and extrinsic evidence while generally excluding direct evidence of the donor's intention that contradicts the plain meaning of the text.
Dominic Drake executes a will leaving property to his cousin John. Extrinsic evidence shows he had no cousin named John but had a nephew named John and a cousin named James. The court admits the extrinsic evidence to reveal the latent ambiguity without relying on direct statements from Dominic contradicting the text.
Denise Donovan executes a trust that mistakenly names the wrong charity due to a scrivener error. Clear and convincing evidence establishes both the mistake and her actual intention. The court reforms the document after considering direct evidence of intention alongside other proof.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Danielle Dixon sues a publisher for defamation. The defendant moves for summary judgment. The court evaluates whether the plaintiff's direct and circumstantial evidence creates a genuine issue under the applicable evidentiary standard without treating direct statements as automatically conclusive.
Dominic Drake publishes excerpts from a memoir. The copyright holder sues. The court weighs direct evidence of the publisher's purpose against circumstantial market-impact evidence to determine whether the use qualifies as fair.
Delta Dynamics seeks approval for a housing project. The village denies the permit. The court examines direct statements by officials and circumstantial patterns of decision-making to determine whether discriminatory purpose exists.
A prosecutor strikes several Black jurors. The defendant objects. The court requires the prosecutor to articulate a race-neutral explanation and evaluates whether direct statements or circumstantial patterns establish purposeful discrimination.
Direct evidence includes the donor's own declarations of intention, whether written or oral, documents and testimony evidencing the donor's intention, contents of the drafting agent's files, and statements made to the donor by the drafting agent or another to the extent the donor acquiesced.
Supporting sources
A court may consider direct evidence contradicting the plain meaning only in the reformation context under § 12.1 when clear and convincing evidence establishes both a mistake affecting specific terms and the donor's actual intention.
Supporting sources
The distinction applies once an ambiguity, whether patent or latent, is established. Direct as well as circumstantial evidence of the donor's intention may then be considered to resolve the ambiguity.
Supporting sources
Once an ambiguity is shown, the donor's intention need only be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Direct evidence may be considered along with other evidence to meet that standard.
Supporting sources
…about it, isn't it, Joe?"[^maj-15] Having then obtained the admission of shooting, the interrogator is advised to refer to circumstantial evidence which negates the self-defense explanation. This should enable him to secure the entire story. One text notes that "Even if he fails to do so, the inconsistency between the subject's…