Which type of evidence is more likely to require inference by a jury?

Circumstantial evidence is more likely to require inference by a jury because it does not directly prove a fact but instead relies on a set of circumstances that suggest a conclusion. When presented with circumstantial evidence, a juror must draw logical inferences to connect the evidence to a particular conclusion or fact. This process can involve considering the context and the relationships between various pieces of evidence to reach a decision about what has occurred.

In contrast, direct evidence provides a clear and straightforward assertion of a fact, such as eyewitness testimony or a video recording, presenting information that does not require further interpretation or inference. Documentary evidence involves written records that articulate the facts explicitly, while testimonial evidence comprises statements made under oath, which directly convey an individual's account of the events. These forms of evidence typically allow juries to reach conclusions without the level of inference required with circumstantial evidence.