How have courts interpreted the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence in a civil case?

present in the jurors' minds, and it is presumed that jurors understand and follow instructions. (People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 689, fn. 17.)

CALCRIM No. 223 explains the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence and tells the jury that neither type of evidence is entitled to more weight than the other. The trial court has a sua sponte duty to read these definitions to the jury if the prosecution's case rests substantially on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Heishman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 147, 167.) The record shows that the prosecution's case did not rest substantially on circumstantial evidence, but rather on the testimony of the police officers. As the prosecutor urged in closing argument, if the jury believed the officers, there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense counsel argued that the police were not in the lawful performance of their duties, and their accounts of the incident were not credible. Counsel also argued a theory of mistaken identity.