In almost every legal proceeding, the parties are required to adhere to important rules known as burdens of proof and evidentiary standards. These rules determine which party is responsible for putting forth enough evidence to either prove or defeat a particular claim and the amount of evidence necessary to accomplish that goal.
The burden of proof determines which party is responsible for putting forth evidence and the level of evidence they must provide in order to prevail. In most cases, the plaintiff (the party bringing the claim) has the burden of proof. As an initial matter, they must meet the burden of production. This requires the plaintiff to put forth evidence in the form of witness testimony, documents, or objects. After the plaintiff presents his or her case-in-chief, the burden of production shifts to the defendant, who then has the opportunity to provide evidence either rebutting the plaintiff’s evidence or supporting the defendant’s own arguments.
Once the plaintiff has met the burden of production, they must meet the burden of persuasion. This burden involves the standard of proof the plaintiff must meet in presenting evidence to the judge or jury. A standard of proof determines the amount of evidence that the plaintiff or defendant needs to provide in order for the jury to reach a particular result. In most civil cases, the standard of proof is “a preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires the jury to return a judgment in favor of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is able to show that a particular fact or event was more likely than not to have occurred.
51 Percent Rule of ThumbSome scholars define the preponderance of the evidence standard as requiring a finding that at least 51 percent of the evidence favors the plaintiff’s position.
In some civil cases, the standard of proof is elevated to a higher standard called “clear and convincing evidence.” This standard of proof requires the plaintiff to prove that a particular fact is substantially more likely than not to be true. Some courts have described this standard as requiring the plaintiff to prove that there is a high probability that a particular fact is true. This standard sets a higher threshold than the preponderance of the evidence standard, but it does not quite rise to the widely recognized standard used in criminal cases, known as “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is the highest standard of proof that may be imposed upon a party at trial, and it is the main standard used in criminal cases. This standard requires the prosecution to show that the only logical explanation that can be derived from the facts is that the defendant committed the alleged crime, and that no other logical explanation can be inferred or deduced from the evidence.
What is “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?”The U.S. Supreme Court has described proof beyond a reasonable doubt as establishing “not an absolute or mathematical certainty, but a moral certainty.”
Certain other standards may apply in specific situations that may arise in criminal cases. These include the probable cause standard that determines when a police officer may conduct a search, arrest a person, or get a warrant. Whether probable cause exists depends on "the totality of the circumstances" in a particular case. Meanwhile, a reasonable suspicion standard applies to situations such as traffic stops and stop and frisks by police. This is considered more lenient than probable cause, although a police officer still must have more than a mere hunch to make a stop.
Last reviewed October 2023
Lawyers and the Legal Process Center Contents
