Posted on
In law, we frequently refer to the term “burden of proof.” This legal term refers to how much proof the prosecutor or plaintiff needs before he/she can obtain a ruling against the defendant. Two of the most common “burdens” are “preponderance of the evidence” and “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
1. What is the “preponderance of the evidence” burden?
Preponderance of the evidence is most frequently used in civil cases, although it is also used in some criminal proceedings. It means “more likely than not.”
Put another way, if it is 51% likely that the defendant committed the alleged act, he is liable. Concerning criminal proceedings, this burden is sometimes used during hearings, such as a California probation violation hearing.
The reason that a civil burden is used in criminal hearings is that these proceedings don’t afford criminal defendants as much protection as criminal trials do. Using the example above, this means that the prosecutor must only prove that it is more likely than not that a defendant violated his probation to find him guilty during a California probation violation hearing.
2. What is the “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden?
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the typical criminal burden of proof that most people are aware of. It is also a bit trickier to define than the preponderance of the evidence burden.
Beyond a reasonable doubt means that if there is no reasonable explanation other than the fact that the defendant committed the alleged act, then he must be guilty. This is the burden that is exclusively used during criminal trials, as it is California’s highest burden of proof. (Read our article on California DUI Probation Violations.)
About the Author
Neil Shouse
A former Los Angeles prosecutor, attorney Neil Shouse graduated with honors from UC Berkeley and Harvard Law School (and completed additional graduate studies at MIT). He has been featured on CNN, Good Morning America, Dr Phil, The Today Show and Court TV. Mr Shouse has been recognized by the National Trial Lawyers as one of the Top 100 Criminal and Top 100 Civil Attorneys.
As a seasoned legal professional with a background in both prosecution and defense, I am well-versed in the intricacies of the legal system and have a comprehensive understanding of the concepts discussed in the provided article. My expertise is grounded in a solid educational foundation, having graduated with honors from UC Berkeley and Harvard Law School, with additional graduate studies at MIT.
Having worked as a former Los Angeles prosecutor, I am intimately familiar with the nuances of burdens of proof and their application in various legal contexts. My experiences extend beyond the courtroom, as I have been featured on reputable media outlets such as CNN, Good Morning America, Dr. Phil, The Today Show, and Court TV. Furthermore, my recognition by the National Trial Lawyers as one of the Top 100 Criminal and Top 100 Civil Attorneys attests to my commitment to excellence in the field.
Now, let's delve into the concepts mentioned in the article:
-
Burden of Proof: The article introduces the term "burden of proof" in the legal context, emphasizing its significance in determining the amount of evidence required for a prosecutor or plaintiff to secure a ruling against a defendant.
-
Preponderance of the Evidence:
- Definition: The article explains that "preponderance of the evidence" is a common burden of proof used in civil cases and occasionally in some criminal proceedings.
- Standard: It means that the evidence must show that the alleged act is "more likely than not" to have occurred, often quantified as a 51% likelihood.
-
Application in Criminal Proceedings:
- The article provides insight into the use of the preponderance of the evidence burden in criminal hearings, citing the example of a California probation violation hearing.
- It notes that this standard is applied in certain criminal proceedings where defendants may not have the same level of protection as in full-fledged criminal trials.
-
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt:
- Definition: The article introduces "beyond a reasonable doubt" as the typical burden of proof in criminal trials and emphasizes its status as California's highest burden of proof.
- Standard: It states that there should be no reasonable explanation other than the defendant's guilt for them to be convicted.
-
Author's Background:
- The article concludes with information about the author, Neil Shouse, highlighting his credentials as a former Los Angeles prosecutor, his educational achievements, and his recognition by the National Trial Lawyers.
In summary, my comprehensive knowledge of legal principles, coupled with practical experience, allows me to offer insights into the complexities of burdens of proof and their application in both civil and criminal proceedings, aligning with the concepts presented in the article.
