It doesn’t take a seasoned lawyer to know that the burden of proof is essential in winning a case. In a legal battle, the party that has the burden of proof has to present evidence that supports their case. This might require submitting documents and bringing forth witnesses that prove their claims and disprove the claims of the opponent.
The outcome of the case that will be decided by the judge and jury often depends on how the evidence is presented by the plaintiff and whether that evidence should prove the claims beyond a reasonable doubt or would it need to satisfy a lesser standard.
Civil and Criminal Lawsuits
In criminal cases, the burden of proof falls squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution. The defendant, meanwhile, is presumed innocent while the prosecutors do their best to prove otherwise. But that might all change if, for example, the defendant has to prove their innocence. In cases where the defendant claims self-defense, then the burden of proof shifts to them, and they have to support that claim with evidence and witnesses to convince the jury.
Civil lawsuits are a different matter altogether. When two parties go to court, then the one who makes the claim has the duty to prove that claim. The judge, however, might assign the other party the burden of proof during the course of the trial. It all depends on how complex the case is.
Some cases, such as car accidents and personal injury lawsuits, could go either way depending on who has the burden of proof and how the lawyer is handling it. This is why you should always look for the best lawyers in your city or state. If you’re in San Antonio, California, for example, then you should hire San Antonio injury lawyers. They have more experience with the nuances of the legal system in the state and know how to present convincing evidence to support your case.
But whether this is a civil lawsuit or a criminal case, both the quality of the evidence, as well as the amount presented, matter as far as the burden of proof is concerned. Whoever has the onus of proving the claim needs to present enough evidence that correlates with the standard of proof they have to meet. The higher that standard, as in the case of criminal lawsuits where the defendant’s freedom is at risk, the higher the quality and amount of proof needed to convince the judge and the jury and win the case.
Different Standards of Proof
When a lawyer represents a plaintiff, the party making the claim, that lawyer has their work cut out for them. Because now they have the burden of proof and it’s their job to collect evidence, find supporting witnesses, and present the whole case in a clear manner for the jury to understand and agree with that claim. The lawyer does this while keeping an eye on the standard of proof they need to meet. That standard varies based on the type of lawsuit they’re dealing with.
In some civil lawsuits related to damage to property and medical bills, that standard is the preponderance of the evidence. The threshold for this standard is 50 percent or above of responsibility on the part of the defendant. This is often the case when the plaintiff is asking for financial compensation from the defendant. Preponderance of the evidence is a lenient standard of proof.
If the defendant’s freedom is what’s at stake and not financial compensation alone, then the standard gets higher and more difficult to achieve. This standard is clear and convincing evidence. It requires more and better quality evidence than the one submitted for the preponderance of the evidence. The threshold of proof is around high probability.
The top proof standard level is beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard is often reserved for criminal cases where the liberty, or possibly the life of the defendant, is at stake. The burden of proof here needs to convince all twelve jury members that the defendant is fully responsible for the crime and that there was no other logical explanation to suggest otherwise. If a single jury isn’t convinced by the evidence presented at court, the prosecution’s case would collapse.
Some lawsuits are more difficult to win than others. Even if the stakes for the defendant are not high enough to put their liberty at risk, the proof standard can still make the plaintiff’s case harder to win. A case in point is negligence in civil cases where the lawyer for the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant breached their duty and, in doing so, caused harm to the plaintiff. Similar cases that involve proving that the defendant had acted in bad faith, or that their intention had been to cause injury or damage, also have unpredictable outcomes.
The burden of proof is the duty of the plaintiff who makes the claim. How well the lawyer presents the evidence supporting that claim and how high the standard of proof required in that case all will determine how the lawsuit will go. While the defendant is presumed innocent, the burden of proof might shift to them during the trial if they make insanity or self-defense claims.