Preponderance of Evidence

What is Preponderance of Evidence?

Generally, when there is a preponderance of evidence, it means that a fact is more likely to be true than not. In civil and personal injury litigation, the term refers to an evidentiary standard that is generally applied. Most states define "more likely than not" as being more than 50 percent likely that a fact is true.

As opposed to "clear and convincing" evidence, the preponderance of evidence standard is a lesser one. Occasionally, civil cases and certain phases of criminal cases use the latter burden.

A prosecutor must prove a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to successfully convict him. Almost all jurisdictions have this standard. In determining what standard of proof applies to their case, the person filing a civil lawsuit can speak with an attorney or research the issue on their own.

Additionally, all jurors receive instructions from the presiding judge just before they decide the case in civil or criminal cases. Jurors will be informed of what the standard of proof is in these instructions.

Preponderance of the Evidence

In many civil cases/civil trials, the plaintiff has to prove that it is more likely than not that a particular fact is true by showing that there is a preponderance of the evidence.

The term "more likely than not" usually refers to a fact that has a greater than half chance of being true.

Generally, the preponderance of the evidence standard applies in civil cases, including those involving personal injury and violations of civil rights. Compared to the clear and convincing standard, as well as the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, this is a lower burden.

Burden of Proof

The legal system and legal process employ three other forms of the burden of proof. In addition to clear and convincing evidence, substantial evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt are required.

Clear and Convincing Evidence

The plaintiffs will meet this standard by presenting enough evidence to establish that the claimed facts are highly probable. A fact-finder (or a judge or jury) must be able to use the evidence presented to determine whether a particular fact is highly and substantially more likely to be true than not.

Different jurisdictions apply this standard to different types of cases and legal proceedings. As a rule, parties will have to meet this burden in civil cases involving fraud, restraining orders, probate of wills, withdrawal of life support, and conservatorships.

In comparison to the preponderance of the evidence standard, clear and convincing proof is a higher standard of proof.

Substantial Evidence

A party is required to produce substantial evidence, which is evidence that will lead a reasonable mind to accept the evidence as sufficient to support a conclusion. In order to meet the standard, more than a scintilla of evidence is needed. Administrative hearings usually use this standard. A judge reviews a government agency's decision during an administrative hearing.

After reviewing the entire record, the reviewing court will uphold an agency's decision if it can reasonably base the decision on substantial evidence. There is no such thing as substantial evidence under the preponderance of the evidence rule. To demonstrate substantial evidence, a greater weight of the evidence is needed than for a probable cause finding. The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause. A warrant must be obtained before a police officer can: make an arrest, conduct a search, or issue a search warrant.

The probability of crime is found by courts and police when there are reasonable grounds for believing that a crime may have been committed.

Beyond A Reasonable Doubt

In criminal cases, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidentiary burden is the highest standard. In all states, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant committed a crime in order to prove the defendant's guilt.

Most states require that a prosecutor present evidence that is so convincing of guilt that the jurors are certain that the defendant committed the crime charged.

Courts sometimes hold that a defendant is proven guilty once a prosecutor can demonstrate, to a high degree of certainty, that the defendant committed the crime.

These courts also state that a prosecutor does not have to prove that an accused committed a crime with absolute certainty.

The Application of Standards

For those wishing to file a lawsuit, it is best to consult an attorney to determine what evidentiary burdens apply to their case.

Lawyers typically offer free consultations so that people can learn the basics of their cases for free.

By researching online or in a law library, people can also find out what standard applies to their case. If possible, however, people should contact an attorney who has experience in their particular area.

The judge will instruct a juror what standard to follow in a civil or criminal case if he/she is a juror.

California Law

In general, California law follows what has been discussed above. In California personal injury cases, the preponderance of the evidence test is usually used. In order to meet this burden, a plaintiff must prove that a given fact is likely to be true. It means that a jury or judge must believe that a fact exists more likely than not.

If a plaintiff seeks punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages, California judges apply a clear and convincing test.

It should be noted that in California, the term "beyond a reasonable doubt" has the following definition: “It is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.”