This standard requires a high level of certainty and ensures that the defendant is not found guilty unless the evidence presented is strong and convincing. It requires the prosecution to prove its case to such a degree that no reasonable doubt can be left in the minds of the jury or judge. This standard of proof is commonly used in civil cases, where one party is seeking damages or other forms of relief from another party.īeyond a reasonable doubt is a higher standard of proof used in criminal cases. This preponderance of evidence definition means that the evidence presented must tip the scales in favor of the party with the burden of proof, showing that it is more probable than not that their claim is true. Preponderance of the evidence is a standard of proof that requires the party with the burden of proof to show that it is more likely than not that their version of events is true. Cross-referencesĬlear and Convincing Proof Due Process of Law Preponderance of Evidence Reasonable Doubt.Preponderance of the Evidence vs. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.

The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.īeyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt