Burden of proof
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof is the duty of one party in a legal case to convince the decision-maker (judge and/or jury) that their version of the facts is true. The burden of proof is carried by the plaintiff in civil trials and the prosecution in criminal trials. The burden of proof is much greater in criminal trials than it is in civil trials, largely because there is much more at stake- like the defendant’s liberties- in a criminal trial.
Non-criminal in nature, civil cases involve conflicts between parties over property rights, personal injury, breech of contract, and the like. In these cases, the plaintiff carries the burden of proof and must demonstrate their version of the facts to be true by a preponderance of evidence. In layman’s terms, this burden of proof requires that the defendant prove that their argument is more likely to be true than false. This is also called the balance of probabilities. When a plaintiff wins a civil case, the courts will typically order the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for their damages.
The burden of proof in criminal cases is much different for several reasons. A defendant in a criminal case often faces incarceration and the loss of many other civil liberties. In the United States, a criminal defendant is presumed innocent of the charges against them until they are proven guilty. Thus, the burden of proof is very high in criminal cases. Prosecutors must be able to prove their version of the facts beyond a reasonable doubt.
In criminal cases, this burden of proof requires that the prosecution demonstrate the defendant’s guilt for each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is considered synonymous to “a moral certainty.” Through fair and thorough consideration of the admissible facts in a case, the judge or jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of each element of the crime in order to convict the defendant.
There are two general elements of a criminal case that the prosecution must prove. The first is that the defendant committed the criminal act(s) in question. In Latin, this is called actus reus. The burden of proof also requires that for each of these acts, the prosecution prove the defendant possessed a “criminal intention” called mens rea in Latin.
Because the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, the defendant is not required to prove their innocence. This right is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. All the defendant has to do is argue that the prosecution has failed to prove their case. Even when the prosecution has successfully argued their case, some criminal defenses may still be employed help a defendant avoid or mitigate punishment for their crimes.
The burden of proof in criminal cases is high and therefore provides some favor to the defendant in a case. If you would like to learn more about burden of proof, please contact us to speak with a qualified and experienced attorney who can evaluate your case to determine how best to protect and maximize your legal interests.
Effect of presumptions and other substitutes for evidence
In general, a presumption or other substitute for evidence shifts the burden of evidence, but not the burden of proof.
While it is often loosely said that a presumption shifts the burden of proof, and, in certain cases, it has been held that a presumption may in fact shift the burden of proof or the burden of persuasion, some cases distinguishing between the concepts of burden of proof and the burden of production, or using the phrases in their precise meanings, hold that the position of the burden of proof or persuasion is not affected by a presumption, but that a presumption shifts the burden of going forward with the evidence, or the burden of production of evidence. The other party, who asserts the contrary of the presumption, will have the burden of rebutting the presumption. If a presumption is not rebutted, the party with the burden of proof prevails on that issue by virtue of the presumption. Otherwise, where evidence contradicting the presumption has been offered, the presumption disappears and is not weighed or treated as evidence.
A presumption is a guide for the courts in fixing the burden of producing proof. When a presumption shifts the burden of proof, the presumption may remain in effect even after evidence rebutting the presumption has been introduced. The jury must decide if the evidence is sufficient to overcome the presumption. These presumptions are expressions of social policy, such as the validity of marriage, sanity in civil cases, legitimacy of a child born in wedlock, and the correctness of judgments.
The position prescribed by the Federal Rules of Evidence is that in all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by Act of Congress or by the Rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of non persuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast.
The Uniform Rules of Evidence provide that the term “presumption” means that when a basic fact is found to exist, the presumed fact is assumed to exist until the nonexistence of the presumed fact is determined as provided for in the Uniform Rules governing the effect of presumptions in civil cases.
Some courts recognize different types of presumptions, some of which have the effect of placing on the disfavored party the burden of persuading the fact finder that the facts are contrary to the presumed facts by varying degrees of proof. For example, where the evidence necessary to prove a prima facie case is missing due to the actions of the opposing party, one type of presumption shifts the burden of proof to ensure that a jury decides the issue of negligence, and thus, the presumption supplies an essential element of the case, negligence, and shifts to the defendant the burden of proving non-negligence.