How does hearsay evidence differ from direct evidence?

Hearsay evidence is fundamentally distinct from direct evidence because it refers to statements made outside of the current court proceedings that are introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted in those statements. Specifically, hearsay involves reports of what someone else has said rather than an individual's own direct observations. This is crucial because the reliability of hearsay evidence is often questioned, as it does not allow for the opportunity for cross-examination of the original source of the statement, which is a key component of the judicial process.

In contrast, direct evidence consists of firsthand knowledge that the witness personally observed or experienced. For instance, if a witness testifies that they saw an event occur, that is considered direct evidence. Thus, the emphasis on what was 'heard' rather than personally witnessed marks the defining characteristic of hearsay, which is the essence of the correct answer.

While hearsay can sometimes be admissible under specific exceptions, it is not universally admissible in court, and thus it cannot be categorized simply as always permissible, nor does it primarily function to challenge the credibility of witnesses directly.