Behind The Scene with Hector Montalvo
  • Behind the scene
  • Up coming show
  • DOR/Child Support info
  • Family court/209A
  • Judge Mary Manzi
  • Blog
  • Links

The preponderance of the evidence

4/6/2010

0 Comments

 
preponderance of the evidence n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.   A standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff if he or she is to win a civil action.

In a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the facts and claims asserted in the complaint. If the respondent, or defendant, files a counterclaim, the respondent will have the burden of proving that claim. When a party has the Burden of Proof, the party must present, through testimony and exhibits, enough evidence to support the claim. The amount of evidence required varies from claim to claim. For most civil claims, there are two different evidentiary standards: preponderance of the evidence, and clear and convincing evidence. A third standard, proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, is used in criminal cases and very few civil cases.

The quantum of evidence that constitutes a preponderance cannot be reduced to a simple formula. A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true. It is difficult to translate this definition and apply it to evidence in a case, but the definition serves as a helpful guide to judges and juries in determining whether a claimant has carried his or her burden of proof.

The majority of civil claims are subjected to a preponderance of evidence standard. If a court or legislature seeks to make a civil claim more difficult to prove, it may raise the evidentiary standard to one of clear and convincing evidence.

Under some circumstances use of the low preponderance of evidence standard may be a violation of constitutional rights. For example, if a state seeks to deprive natural parents of custody of their children, requiring only proof by a preponderance of evidence is a violation of the parents' due process rights (Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 [1982]). Freedom in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest, and the government cannot take it away with only a modest evidentiary standard. However, a court may use a preponderance of evidence standard when a mother seeks to establish that a certain man is the father of her child (Rivera v. Minnich, 483 U.S. 574, 107 S. Ct. 3001, 97 L. Ed. 2d 473 [1987]). Most states use the preponderance of evidence standard in these cases because they have an interest in ensuring that fathers support their children.

Further readings Orloff, Neil, and Jery Stedinger. 1983. "A Framework for Evaluating the Preponderance-of-the-Evidence Standard." University of Pennsylvania Law Review 131 (April).

Slatkin, Stephanie. 1997. "The Standard of Proof at Sentencing Hearings Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Why the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard is Constitutionally Inadequate."

Cross-references Clear and Convincing Proof.

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Behind the Scene with Hector Montalvo

    Blog on letters I have sent to work on solving some of the issues 

    Archives

    November 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    2009 Vawa
    Can I Film Paula
    Case Law
    Chief Justice Mulligan
    Chief Justice Paula Carey
    Chief Paula Carey
    Child Support
    Commission On Judicial Conduct
    Court Charged With Corruption
    Dor Stop This
    Dv Against Men
    Father Proves Court Tapes Were Altered
    Judge Amy Blake
    Judge Stahlin
    Letter To Sjc
    Missing Files In Probate
    Paula Are You Reading
    Pro-Se Coordinator
    Review Of Contempt Order
    Sen Baddour
    State House Meeting On 2-11-10
    Thank You Dor
    They Work For Us
    What Is Paula Hiding
    Will Paula Resign

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.