A copy of evidence or oral description of its contents; which is not as reliable as best evidence is what type of evidence?

Question

Options

• ADirect evidence
• BCircumstantial evidence
• CHearsay evidence
• DSecondary evidence

• A
  2% (1)
• B
  5% (2)
• C
  7% (3)
• D
  85% (35)

Explanation

Secondary evidence is correct because it refers to a copy of an original document or an oral account of its contents - it stands in contrast to "best evidence" (the original itself), and courts treat it as less reliable precisely because it lacks the authenticity and accuracy of the primary source.

Direct evidence (A) is wrong because it directly proves a fact without inference - such as an eyewitness account of an event - and has nothing to do with copies vs. originals. Circumstantial evidence (B) is wrong because it requires an inference to connect it to a conclusion (e.g., fingerprints at a scene); it is not defined by being a copy. Hearsay evidence (C) is a common trap here - hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, which is a distinct concept from secondary evidence, even though both involve indirect accounts.

Memory tip: Think of "secondary" as "second-hand" - a photocopy is second to the original, and a witness describing a document's contents is one step removed from the real thing. The Best Evidence Rule demands the original; anything less is secondary.

No community discussion yet for this question.