Criminal law
During criminal litigation, the responsibility of proof is invariably upon the state. The particular state will have to demonstrate that the particular accused is guilty. The defendant is assumed being innocent; the accused is required to demonstrate nothing. (There are actually exceptions. If the defendant wishes to assert that he/she is insane, and for that reason not necessarily guilty, the defendant bears the responsibility of proving his/her insanity. Other exceptions include defendants who declare self-defense as well as duress.)
During criminal litigation, the state will have to prove the fact that the particular accused satisfied each component of the actual statutory characterization of the actual criminal offense, as well as the defendant’s participation, “beyond a reasonable uncertainty.” It is difficult to put a valid numerical value upon the actual probability that the responsible person really committed the actual crime, nevertheless legal authorities who do assign a numerical value typically say at least 98% or 99% certainty in guilt.
Civil law
Within civil court, the duty of proof is actually initially upon the plaintiff. However, there are a range of technical circumstances with which the actual burden shifts towards the defendant. For example, in the event the plaintiff makes a prima facie case, the responsibility shifts towards the accused in order to refute as well as rebut the plaintiff’s proof.
Throughout civil litigation, the plaintiff wins if the preponderance of the evidence favors the particular complainant. For example, if the jury believes that there is more than a 50% probability that the defendant has been negligent in causing the plaintiff’s injuries, the plaintiff wins. This can be a very low standard, compared to criminal law. In my personal perspective, it is not high enough a standard, particularly considering that the actual defendant could be ordered to compensate countless dollars to the plaintiff or complainants.
Some tort cases for example fraudulence demand that the litigant show their case in a degree of “clear and convincing evidence”, which is often a standard higher than preponderance, but much less compared to “beyond an acceptable doubt”
Tags: civil law, worlds of law