Substantive evidence is required for a verdict in legal cases and must be credible and prove the legal elements of the case. Verdicts based on speculation are often overturned on appeal. The standard is also used in administrative hearings and must be consistent with what reasonable minds would conclude. The threshold is lower than in criminal cases but still requires solid, reasonable, and credible evidence.
Substantive evidence may be the legal requirement that must be met for a jury to reach a verdict in a case. The evidence must substantively prove the legal elements of the case and must be credible enough to be accepted by a reasonable mind as sufficient to reach a conclusion. Even if a judge or jury was able to arrive at two conflicting conclusions, a verdict can be reached if either conclusion could be accepted by reasonable people. Evidence based on conjecture is often not considered substantial evidence. A verdict based on speculation and not reason often fails.
An appellate judge may overturn or postpone a verdict from a judge and jury if it is shown that the evidence presented was insubstantial. Verdicts that do not stand when heard by a higher court are often so unreasonable and based on hypothetical information that a reasonable mind could not have reached the conclusion reached by the judge or jury. The legal evidence needed to prove such cases is either non-existent, or the inferences a jury must draw are based not on logic, but on speculation. Substantive evidence must be robust to pass this legal requirement in most jurisdictions.
The standard of substantive evidence is often applied in administrative hearings. The council or panel is required to examine the evidence as a whole and base a decision that is consistent with what reasonable minds would conclude based on the same evidence. Some jurisdictions prohibit the use of hearsay evidence, such as newspapers or letters, and decisions reached on such evidence are often overturned on appeal. For example, if there is an objection to a trademark registration issue and the US Patent and Trademark Office rules grant a trademark based on logical evidence, then the decision will likely be sound. The appellant would have to show that the evidence presented was hearsay or was based merely on conjecture or speculation.
A plaintiff does not have to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt to provide substantial evidence. This is a higher standard used in criminal cases. A similar higher standard in civil cases is the preponderance of evidence. The courts have ruled that the substantial evidence is less than the preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt, but more than a mere spark of the evidence presented. The threshold is lower when substantial evidence is proven, but it still needs to be solid, reasonable, and credible evidence.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
