If you’ve watched police or lawyer shows on TV, you’ve probably heard the phrase “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” That’s the level of proof (called the “standard of proof”) required in a criminal case. In most civil lawsuits, the standard of proof is called the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. What does that standard mean, and how does it work?
We'll start by explaining what standards of proof are, then we'll have a closer look at three of the most common standards: Preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt.
What Are Standards of Proof?
In a court case—civil or criminal—each party bears the burden of proving the claims or defenses it raises. To satisfy its burden of proof, a party must have enough evidence to meet the applicable standard of proof. Stated a bit differently, the standard of proof tells you how much evidence you need to satisfy the burden of proof.
Let’s look at a simple example.
Each Party’s Burden of Proof and Standard of Proof
At a trial, Doe has the burden of proving to the trier of fact (meaning the jury or, if the parties agree to try the case to the court, the judge,) that Roe drove negligently. To satisfy this burden, Doe must present enough evidence to prove Roe’s negligence by a preponderance of the evidence, the standard of proof in most civil cases.
What about Roe’s comparative fault defense? Roe bears the burden of proving it. To meet that burden, Roe will have to present enough evidence to convince the trier of fact of Doe’s comparative fault, also by a preponderance of the evidence.
Comparing Standards of Proof
Have a look at this chart, ranking standards of proof from most (top) to least (bottom) demanding:
|
Standards of Proof |
|
Beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal) |
|
Clear and convincing evidence (civil/criminal) |
|
Preponderance of the evidence (civil) |
|
Probable cause to arrest/search (criminal) |
|
Reasonable suspicion to stop/detain (criminal) |
Our primary focus is on the civil standards—preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence.
What Is the "Preponderance of the Evidence" Standard?
Preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof in most civil cases. Generally speaking, a civil case is any case that isn’t a criminal case. So, for example, a contract dispute is a civil case. A fight between neighbors over a property boundary is a civil case. So is a lawsuit in a car accident case, a slip and fall case, or a medical malpractice case.
If it’s a civil case, you should presume that the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence, unless you find a rule telling you that some other standard applies. If you’re unsure, think about consulting with an experienced lawyer.
Let’s begin by defining the preponderance of the evidence standard, then we’ll explain how it works.
How Does the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard Work?
Let’s return to our car accident example. To prove that Roe was negligent, Doe must show that:
- Roe had a legal duty to drive safely by stopping at the stop sign, and
- Roe breached that duty by failing to stop at the stop sign.
Doe must prove each element—duty and breach of duty—by a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, Doe must convince the trier of fact that each element is more than 50% likely to be true. Doe will try to prove each element with evidence like testimony and documents.
Roe must prove each element of the comparative fault defense by the same preponderance standard.
Once both sides have offered their proof, the trier of fact decides whether each has proved its claim or defense by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning more likely than not to be true.
What Is the "Clear and Convincing Evidence" Standard?
Preponderance of the evidence isn’t the only standard of proof used in civil cases. In some situations, a standard called “clear and convincing evidence” will apply. We’ll start by defining clear and convincing evidence, then we’ll look at when it might apply.
When Might the Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard Apply?
Whether the clear and convincing evidence standard applies depends on controlling state (or sometimes federal) law. In general, though, the clear and convincing evidence standard might be applied in cases involving:
- a claim based on fraud
- a claim for punitive damages
- potential loss of parental rights
- a restraining order
- a request to withdraw life support, and
- wills or conservatorships.
How Does the Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard Work?
Assume that Karen sues Jeff for fraud. To win a fraud claim, Karen typically must prove that:
- Jeff made a statement
- the statement was false when Jeff made it
- Jeff intended to deceive Karen with the false statement
- Karen reasonably relied on Jeff’s false statement, and
- Karen was injured.
In order to win, Karen must have clear and convincing evidence of each element of her fraud claim. In other words, Karen must convince the trier of fact it’s highly probable each element of her fraud claim is true. If clear and convincing evidence is lacking for any necessary fact, Karen’s fraud claim will fail.
How Is "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" Different?
A single act can land you in both civil and criminal court. For example, if you hit someone in a fit of anger, you’ve committed a crime called “battery” (or perhaps “assault and battery”). You’ve also committed an intentional tort called “battery.”
The standards of proof for the two cases, civil and criminal, are very different. The civil standard, as we know, is a preponderance of the evidence.
In criminal court, the state must prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”—the highest standard of proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt is sometimes described as “to a moral certainty,” though not to an “absolute certainty.” The trier of fact must be convinced that no reasonable explanation other than the defendant’s guilt can explain the evidence.
The reason for the heightened criminal standard should come as no surprise. Because prison time can result from a criminal conviction, the trier of fact must have a high degree of certainty in a criminal verdict. The burden is lower in civil court because the typical consequence of civil liability is an order—called a judgment—to pay money.
Get Help Meeting the Standard of Proof in Your Case
While the rules concerning civil standards of proof are easy to summarize, understanding how they work in a real case can be difficult and confusing. Attorneys are trained and experienced in understanding what evidence is needed to satisfy the standards of proof in different situations. If you need help, find a lawyer who’s right for you and your case.