Civil Law v. Criminal Law: Burdens of Proof
In civil law, the burden of proof, or the degree to which the plaintiff must prove their case, is preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, the issue is not one of guilt or innocence but whether someone is liable to another person for some sort of injury. In legal terms, an injury may not be physical; it could be money or something else.
Preponderance of the evidence simply means that the evidence proves that something is more likely than not, due to the weight of the evidence, in both its quality and persuasiveness. If the evidence shows that something is less likely to have occurred or if the evidence is equally balanced, then the plaintiff has not met their burden of proof. Notice that the plaintiff has the duty of proving their case. That is because they are the person who is bringing the complaint forward in the first place, so they must back up their claim with evidence.
In criminal cases, where the stakes are much higher, the burden of proof is also much higher. The burden of proof, or the degree to which the government must prove their case, is beyond a reasonable doubt. This highest standard of proof means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation for the occurrence as proven by the evidence so the jury must be virtually certain of the defendant’s guilt to render a guilty verdict. This standard of proof is much higher than the civil standard, which only requires a certainty greater than 50% because the stakes in a criminal trial are much higher, as will be discussed in the next post.
Notice it is the government that must prove their case in criminal cases, not the defendant. The defendant is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. This means that, in theory, the defendant does not have to present a case at all. They could, in theory, provide no evidence or witnesses. Of course, this would not be to their advantage, so it usually does not ever happen that way.
Occasionally a judge will issue a summary judgement in favor of one of the parties, or a judgment entered by a court for one party without a full trial. The party that requests the summary judgement is called the movant, and must show 1) that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and 2) that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A material fact is any relevant fact where there is a genuine dispute and that could allow a factfinder to decide against the movant. Judges may grant partial summary judgment for some factual issues, but leave others for trial. When considering summary judgment, the judge must consider all evidence in the light most favorable to the movant’s opponent. If summary judgement is granted, there will be no trial.
In both civil and criminal law, offenses can be divided into elements, or essential requirements or parts of the offense that must each be proven for that offense to have been committed. Each individual element must meet the burden of proof for the offense to have been committed. For instance, negligence, a civil claim, is considered to have four elements: 1) a duty that is owed to another party, 2) a breach of that duty, 3) harm or injury (again, not necessarily physical) to the plaintiff, and 4) causation where the breach of the duty that was owed caused the harm. If the plaintiff has failed to prove any of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence, then there has been no negligence. Likewise, the elements of first-degree murder, a criminal offense, has three elements: 1) a person purposefully or willfully, 2) with deliberation and premeditation, 3) caused the death of another person. If the prosecution fails to prove any of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant is not guilty of first-degree murder.
Whether a plaintiff, civil defendant, or criminal defendant, having an attorney greatly improves your chances of winning your case as attorneys are trained to understand and argue the nuances of various elements of offenses.
