Preponderance of Evidence: Proving Your Case in Court
If you’ve been injured in an accident or subjected to harmful, illegal conduct in the workplace, then you could be entitled to legal compensation. As you explore the possibilities of a lawsuit or some other form of redress, you may be confused as to how to actually present your legal arguments — and what the dispute even entails from a strategic perspective. Part of this strategic challenge is overcoming the “burden of proof” standard that applies to your case. In civil cases, this burden is different from the standards of evidence used in criminal law, where the scrutiny of evidence is much more rigorous.
Contact 1-800-THE-LAW2 for a free consultation with an attorney in our network. Discussing your case with an attorney is a great way to start to understand the contours of your civil dispute, and to understand what sort of next steps you can take to secure compensation.
That being said if you’d like to learn more about the dispute process, evidentiary standards, and other similar issues, keep reading! We’ll cover some of the basics.
What is a “burden of proof” and how does it work?
The burden of proof is the burden of producing evidence that establishes the truth of the facts being presented. This burden is generally imposed on plaintiffs (i.e., the injury victims) in civil disputes, on defendants in civil disputes when they are presenting their defense, and on prosecutors in criminal disputes. At its most foundational level, the burden of proof is meant to fall on the party who is attempting to assert something. After all, you can’t claim that something happened without having the evidence to back it up!
In a criminal prosecution, the burden of proof is higher than in civil cases. Evidence must meet the threshold of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ to ensure that no reasonable alternative explanation exists for the accused’s actions, reflecting the serious consequences of criminal convictions.
The “standard of proof” is the level of strictness by which we evaluate the evidence being presented in service of the “burden of proof.” Some evidence may not be as definitive as others — as such when dealing with a stricter evidentiary standard, it may not be sufficient for establishing liability.
What is Preponderance of Evidence?
In civil cases, the preponderance of evidence is the standard of proof that the plaintiff must meet to win their case. This standard requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that their claims are more likely to be true than not true. Often referred to as the “more likely than not” standard, it means that the plaintiff must show that the fact in dispute has a greater than 50% probability of being true based on the evidence presented.
This standard is less stringent than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal cases, where the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt to a near certainty. However, it is more demanding than the “substantial evidence” standard used in some administrative proceedings. In essence, the preponderance of evidence standard requires the plaintiff to tip the scales of justice slightly in their favor to prevail in their civil case.
What are the three burdens of proof?
There are three standard burdens of proof that you’re likely to encounter in the American legal system. They are as follows.
The preponderance of the evidence
The “preponderance of the evidence” standard is perhaps the most common in the civil dispute context — such as personal injury disputes. Most essentially, it can be described as the “more likely than not” standard, in that it only requires that you establish that the facts are 51 percent (or more) likely to establish the truth of what is being asserted.
Put simply, if you can show that the defendant “more likely than not” caused your injuries and losses, then you can succeed in overcoming the preponderance of the evidence standard. It is a rather loose standard, and as such, civil disputes are often worth pursuing even if you don’t have the strongest possible claim — as you don’t need to have an airtight claim, you just need to have a stronger narrative than the other party!
Beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law
The “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is the main burden of proof standard in the criminal dispute context. Essentially, it requires that the prosecutor establish that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is defined as a 99 percent likelihood of culpability. That is an extremely strict standard that is quite difficult to overcome!
However, it is important to note that ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ does not require absolute certainty.
There are good reasons for the reasonable doubt standard being so strict — primarily, lawmakers have decided that it’s better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to go to prison. The heightened level of strictness makes it so that it’s much more difficult for an innocent defendant to be convicted of a criminal offense, so this accomplishes lawmakers’ goals rather effectively.
Clear and convincing evidence
The “clear and convincing evidence” standard is common in the civil dispute context and sits somewhere between the preponderance of the evidence standard and the reasonable doubt standard. Essentially, it can be described as a standard that requires that you establish that the facts are 70 percent (or more) likely to establish the truth of what is being asserted.
In addition to these standards, ‘reasonable belief’ plays a crucial role in determining the lawfulness of an officer’s actions during investigations, illustrating its relevance in both criminal proceedings and certain civil cases involving criminal acts.
Who has the burden of proof?
In civil disputes, it is generally the plaintiff (i.e., the injured party) who has the burden of proof (i.e., the burden of establishing the true factual narrative to prove liability) in the case to show that the defendant’s actions caused them to sustain injuries and losses. That being said, the defendant has the burden of proof when attempting to assert a defense that counters the plaintiff’s allegations.
In criminal cases, the presumption of innocence remains until the defendant is proven guilty, highlighting the prosecutor’s burden to demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Are mere allegations, not evidence?
Mere allegations cannot serve as evidence. To be legitimate, evidence introduced into your case must be relevant (i.e., has a logical connection to the facts that it is intended to prove, as well as has probative value), and must not be hearsay.
For definitions and explanations of legal terms, you can refer to a legal dictionary, which provides clear meanings of complex legal terminology.
This can be difficult to understand, so let’s use a brief example for clarification.
If the defendant says, “Oh my god, I can’t believe I just hit your car!” You cannot introduce that statement as evidence that the defendant actually hit your car, as it would be hearsay — you would be using the statement to prove the statement. You can, however, introduce it as evidence to prove that the defendant was alarmed by what had occurred and was in a highly emotional state of mind, which could help you build your narrative indirectly.
What is res ipsa loquitur and how does it work?
Res ipsa loquitur is a legal doctrine that applies to many civil disputes. Essentially, it allows plaintiffs to impose “fault” on the defendant in situations where the defendant’s actions serve as inherent proof of fault. This makes it a lot easier for the plaintiff to establish liability and secure compensation, as they don’t have to introduce any additional evidence to prove that the defendant’s conduct was negligent.
How does it work in real-world terms? Consider the following.
Suppose that you’re injured in a car accident where you’re sideswiped by another driver. With the aid of an attorney, you investigate the accident and discover that the other driver ran a red light when they T-boned you at the intersection. The fact that they “ran the red light” and hit you is subject to “res ipsa loquitur,” in that, you don’t have to prove that the defendant was negligent — it’s obvious on its face that the defendant’s actions qualify as negligence and can give rise to legal liability.
Convincing Evidence
Convincing evidence plays a crucial role in meeting the preponderance of evidence standards in civil cases. This type of evidence is sufficient to persuade a reasonable person of the truth of a particular fact or claim. Convincing evidence can come in various forms, including witness testimony, documents, photographs, and physical evidence.
The key characteristic of convincing evidence is its credibility and reliability. It must be strong enough to persuade a reasonable person that the claim is true. For instance, in a personal injury case, medical records and expert testimony can serve as convincing evidence to establish the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and the impact on their life. The goal is to present evidence that is not only relevant but also compelling enough to meet the required evidence standard.
Evidence Preponderance in Practice
In practice, the preponderance of evidence standard is used to determine liability and damages in civil cases. For example, in a personal injury lawsuit, the plaintiff must present evidence showing that their injuries were caused by the defendant’s negligence. This might include medical records, eyewitness accounts, and expert testimony.
The plaintiff also needs to provide evidence detailing the extent of their injuries and the resulting damages, such as medical bills and lost wages. On the other hand, the defendant may present evidence to refute the plaintiff’s claims or to demonstrate that they were not negligent. The court will then weigh the evidence presented by both parties to decide if the plaintiff has met the preponderance of evidence standard. This process ensures that the decision is based on a balanced consideration of all the evidence presented.
Presenting a Case or Defense
When presenting a case or defense, understanding the burden of proof and the required standard of proof is essential. In civil cases, the plaintiff must meet the preponderance of evidence standard, while in criminal cases, the prosecution must meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.
To effectively present a case, the evidence must be credible, reliable, and sufficient to persuade a reasonable person of the claim’s truth. This means the evidence presented should be relevant to the case and not based on speculation or conjecture. For instance, in a civil case, the plaintiff might present medical records and expert testimony to establish the extent of their injuries, while the defendant might provide evidence to challenge the plaintiff’s claims.
By understanding and adhering to the burden of proof and the required evidence standard, parties can present their case or defense more effectively, increasing their chances of success. This strategic approach ensures that the evidence presented is compelling and meets the necessary legal thresholds.
How much does it cost to hire a car accident attorney for my dispute?
Many people are under the impression that hiring a personal injury attorney (i.e., car accident attorney, motorcycle accident attorney, work accident attorney, etc.) is unaffordable and beyond the means of a normal person. But this is a misperception.
In fact, most personal injury lawyers work on a contingency fee basis. As such, they usually don’t cost anything upfront or out of pocket. Instead, they offer legal representation in exchange for a percentage cut of whatever compensation they secure on your behalf. This percentage can vary from 25 percent to 40 percent (or more).
Thanks to contingency fee arrangements, pursuing your legal claims (by filing a lawsuit) isn’t burdensome or risky. That’s because you only pay if you “win” compensation. If you do not win compensation, then you can walk away with no attorney fees or costs. In conjunction with free consultations, there’s really no downside to getting in touch with a qualified attorney so that you can move forward with your dispute.
Contact 1-800-THE-LAW2 for a Free Consultation
If you’ve been injured in an accident, or subjected to wrongful conduct in the workplace, then you could be entitled to compensation. Navigating the legal dispute process isn’t always straightforward, however, and can be overwhelming — especially for first-time plaintiffs. That’s why we encourage you to connect to a qualified attorney for a free case evaluation.
Contact 1-800-THE-LAW2 for a free consultation with an experienced local attorney in our network. During this initial consultation, you’ll be able to discuss the details of your dispute and learn more about your strategic options going forward. So pick up the phone and call us today to get started!
We look forward to assisting you.
