Circumstantial evidence is not an inferior grade of evidence: it can be as strong as (or stronger than) any other kind of evidence, including eyewitness evidence, physical evidence, or scientific evidence.

Cf. United States v. Day, 789 F.2d 1217, 1222-1223 (6th Cir. 1986) (reversing conviction for preparing false income tax returns because the trial court erred in admitting a witness's statement which was "fatally flawed because....A prior inconsistent statement of a witness is admissible, not only to impeach the witness, but also as substantive evidence -- to prove the truth of the matter previously asserted by the witness -- only if the prior consistent statement was made under oath.

Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 114-115 (1934) (neither defendant nor defendant's counsel was not allowed to be present when jury viewed crime scene; question was whether this was a denial of due process; held, it was not; Justice Cardozo for the Court: "A fertile source of...maybe

Fed. R. Evid. 609(b) ("Time limit. Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of....Under federal law the conviction of a witness is generally inadmissible to impeach the witness if more than ten years has elapsed since the conviction or since the release of the witness from imprisonment for that conviction, whichever is later.