Standard of Proof in Criminal and Civil Cases, Explained

The standard of proof is the level of evidence required in a legal case to prove a claim or issue. It shows how convincing the evidence must be for the claim to be accepted as true.

There are different standards depending on whether the case is criminal or civil.

1. For criminal cases, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is the highest standard. The evidence must be so strong that there is no reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt. This very high standard exists because the consequences of a criminal conviction are so severe.
2. For civil cases, the standard is lower – “preponderance of the evidence.” This means the evidence for the plaintiff’s claim only needs to be slightly more convincing than the opposing evidence – 50.1% in favor is enough. There is also an intermediate “clear and convincing evidence” standard for certain serious civil matters like fraud or terminating parental rights.

Understanding these different levels of proof is crucial for any legal case. In this blog post, we’ll explore the standard of proof, applications across various areas of law, and some examples.

Preponderance of the Evidence Standard

In civil litigation cases, the standard of proof is typically “preponderance of the evidence.” This is a lower threshold compared to the stringent “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials.

Essentially, it requires that the evidence favoring the plaintiff’s side of the case outweighs the evidence favoring the defendant’s side, even if just by a little bit. As long as 50.1% of the evidence tips toward the plaintiff’s version of events or claims, that would constitute a preponderance.

This burden of proof makes logical sense in civil cases, which generally do not risk consequences as severe as incarceration or execution that criminal cases can involve. The preponderance standard reflects that civil wrongs like breach of contract or negligence resulting in injury have more of a financial or monetary remedy at stake.

To prove a case by a preponderance of the evidence, the plaintiff’s evidence must be more convincing and credible than the defendant’s evidence, even marginally so. The judge or jury weighs the relative merits of all the admissible facts and testimony presented.

If the evidence appears to be equally balanced or a tie, then legally, the defendant prevails because the plaintiff would have failed to meet their burden of proof.

While more easily attainable than criminal standards, preponderance is still an important gatekeeper. It prevents civil cases from proceeding on flimsy claims by requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate their version is more likely than not.

Clear and Convincing Evidence – A Higher Bar

For certain civil cases, the law demands a higher standard of proof than mere preponderance of the evidence.

This intermediate standard is known as clear and convincing evidence.

While not as stringent as the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal cases, clear and convincing evidence requires plaintiffs to prove their case is highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue.

Firm Belief

Under this standard, the judge or jury must firmly believe or be convinced that the allegations are probably true.

It’s not enough to conclude the plaintiff’s claim is more likely valid than not – there must be a high probability of truth.

Situations that may require clear and convincing evidence:

• Termination of parental rights.
• Restraining orders and protective orders.
• Conservatorships and guardianships.
• Wills and estate challenges.
• Fraud claims.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – Toughest Standard to Meet

In criminal cases, where a defendant’s freedom is on the line, the US Constitution requires the highest standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Under this standard, the prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt to a near certainty. If the judge or even one juror has any reasonable doubts about the defendant’s guilt, they must render a not-guilty verdict.

It’s important to note that “beyond a reasonable doubt” doesn’t mean “beyond all doubt.” Absolute certainty is an impossible standard that would undermine the criminal justice system. Instead, the standard demands proof that leaves no reasonable alternative explanation for the crime.

Other Legal Standards in the U.S. Legal System

While the preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt are the three primary standards of proof, a few other norms may come into play in specific legal contexts.

Reasonable Suspicion

This standard is often used in criminal investigations to justify brief detentions or pat-down searches. It requires more than a mere hunch but less than probable cause.

Probable Cause

Police must have probable cause to arrest someone, conduct a search, or obtain a warrant. Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime has been committed.

Substantial Evidence

Administrative law judges use this standard in settings such as appeals of federal or state agency decisions. It requires more than a mere trace of evidence but less than a preponderance.

These standards generally apply to preliminary or procedural matters rather than the ultimate question of guilt or liability.

Don’t Face the Burden of Proof Alone

The standards of proof in criminal and civil cases are just one aspect of a legal case. So when you’re in legal trouble, you don’t want to go it alone. At Benjamin Durham Law Firm, we practice both criminal and civil law in Las Vegas and Salt Lake City.

We know the legal system inside and out, and we’re ready to roll up our sleeves and fight for you. So, if you have a legal case, contact us today to discuss your options.