In what scenario would circumstantial evidence be typically used?

Circumstantial evidence is generally used in scenarios where there is an absence of direct evidence. This type of evidence relies on inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. For instance, if a person is found at the scene of a crime but there's no direct evidence, like a witness seeing them commit the act or DNA connecting them to the crime, circumstantial evidence such as fingerprints, a weapon found nearby, or the individual’s behavior prior to or after the crime may support the theory that they were involved. It helps to establish a context or narrative that can lead to the conclusion that a person committed a crime, even if direct evidence is lacking.

In cases where direct evidence is available or when conflicting witness testimony exists, the use of circumstantial evidence may not be necessary or relevant. Additionally, circumstantial evidence does not primarily serve to confirm facts presented by direct evidence; instead, it serves to build a case in scenarios lacking direct proof. Thus, the effective use of circumstantial evidence arises predominantly when direct evidence is not present, making the correct response fitting for this context.