[ad_1]
The preponderance of evidence is a low standard of proof used in civil trials where the plaintiff must prove that events probably occurred as described. The burden of proof shifts to the defendant if they file a counterclaim. Evidence must have legal force and integrity, and the defendant has the opportunity to examine it. Clear and convincing evidence is a slightly higher standard, and for serious criminal cases, individuals must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Preponderance of evidence is a standard of proof used in many civil trials. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof in such trials, and is required to prove by the standard of preponderance of evidence that the events in dispute probably occurred as described. The facts of the case presented must be more convincing than the counterarguments presented by the opposing party. This is the lowest standard of proof and does not generally occur in criminal cases, where the stakes are much higher.
If someone files a claim and the defendant files a counterclaim, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. Essentially, the person making an assertion that a legal remedy is needed is required to provide evidence to support the assertion and make the case. The plaintiff’s information must most likely be true, as presented in court, and the defendant or defendant may be able to win the case by poking enough holes in the question that it doesn’t seem reasonably truthful.
By the standard of preponderance of evidence, the evidence presented must still have legal force and integrity. While the standards for evidence in civil cases are much lower, people can be penalized for falsifying evidence and testifying incorrectly on the witness stand. The defendant has the opportunity to examine the evidence to confirm its validity and can interview people present at the booth to gather additional information. These legal rights in court give people accused of civil or criminal offenses the opportunity to explore the basis of the allegations and challenge them in court.
The plaintiffs seek to demonstrate that the situation occurred much as they claim it did and to show that their explanation for a series of events is the most likely. For example, someone might sue for a broken window to be replaced, saying a baseball flew through the window and when the person looked out, a person was standing outside in a catcher’s mitt. Even if no one witnessed the ball pass through the window, the preponderance of the evidence would seem to point to the guilt of the person wearing the glove.
A slightly higher standard than the preponderance of evidence, known as clear and convincing evidence, requires people to not only prove that something likely happened as claimed, but to demonstrate that the likelihood is very high. Under this standard, the facts of the case must appear demonstrably true. This higher standard is used in both civil and criminal cases when a judge deems it worthy. Finally, for serious criminal cases, individuals must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts of the case occurred as alleged.
[ad_2]