What Is the Standard of Proof in a Criminal Case?

When a lawsuit goes to trial, there are several evidentiary standards the California courts use to reach a conclusion. The basic standard, a “preponderance of evidence,” is necessary to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that certain allegations are true. This evidentiary standard that the courts apply is also referred to as a standard of proof. In most states, the plaintiff must show that there is more than a 50 percent likelihood that their allegations are accurate to win their case based on a preponderance of evidence.

In civil cases and some criminal cases, “clear and convincing” evidence is necessary for a prosecutor to win their case. This is a higher burden of proof than preponderance of evidence, but there is yet another higher burden of proof in most criminal cases. The highest standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” When a prosecutor can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant committed a crime, the defendant is usually convicted of the illegal act.

In all criminal and civil cases, the judge instructs the jury on the details of the standard of proof before they decide the case. This gives the jurors direction as they deliberate on what standard of proof applies to the specific case. Consider the following details regarding the standard of proof and how it applies to criminal cases.

What Types of Cases Does the Preponderance of Evidence Standard Apply To?

This standard of proof must be met in many civil trials for the plaintiff to show the court that a fact is true. Cases in which this standard applies are often related to violations of civil liberty or personal injury.

How Are the Other Standards of Proof Applied?

There are several levels when it comes to determining burden of proof in the legal system, including probable cause, substantial evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt:

• Clear and convincing evidence. When a plaintiff or prosecutor must show clear and convincing evidence, they need to present enough evidence to satisfy the standard by convincing the court it is highly probable that the allegations are true.This means the judge or jury must be able to determine that it is highly and substantially more likely that the allegations are true, as opposed to untrue, based on the evidence they are shown.The types of legal proceedings and cases in which this standard is applied vary by jurisdiction. In most cases, however, the plaintiff will need to satisfy this burden in the following civil cases:
  • Restraining orders
  • Fraud
  • Conservatorships
  • Withdrawing life support
  • Probate of wills
• Substantial evidence. This is the standard of proof in which a plaintiff must offer sufficient evidence to lead a reasonably minded individual to accept it as enough to support a conclusion. This standard is typically employed in administrative hearings and demands more than a mere scintilla of proof. Administrative hearings are those in which a judge is tasked with reviewing a decision made by a government agency.The court that reviews the decision upholds the decision if the review determines there was substantial evidence for the agency to reasonably reach their decision on the matter. This standard of proof actually falls below the preponderance of evidence, but it does require a greater weight of evidence than that which is required for finding “probable cause.”According to the Fourth Amendment, probable cause is necessary for law enforcement officials to arrest an individual, conduct searches of certain property, or get a warrant. In many cases, law enforcement or the courts find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis to suspect that someone has committed a crime.
• Beyond a reasonable doubt. In most criminal cases, the allegations against a defendant must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In the legal process, this is the highest standard of proof that is used. Every state in the country has laws that make it clear a prosecutor must present enough evidence to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the crime they are accused of.For a prosecutor to satisfy this burden, they are required to bring evidence to court that is so convincing of guilt that the jurors could have no questions in their minds regarding whether the defendant committed the crime. Sometimes, courts consider a defendant to be proven guilty when the prosecutor can show they committed the crime “to a moral certainty,” as opposed to stating they are guilty “to an absolute certainty” of the alleged crime.

How Can a Person Determine Which Standard of Proof Applies to Their Case?

If an individual is accused of a crime or files a civil lawsuit, the best course of action to find out what evidentiary burden the court requires is to seek the counsel of a skilled attorney. Legal professionals know the details of the complex court system, and they can help their clients through every step of the process.

How Is the Standard of Proof Applied to Cases in California?

In the state of California, most personal injury cases require a preponderance of evidence to prove guilt or liability. For the plaintiff to meet this burden, they must prove it is more likely than not that certain allegations are true. The California court applies the clear and convincing evidence standard in personal injury cases in which the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages and punitive damages. The highest standard of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, is what the courts require in criminal cases in the state.

An Experienced California Attorney Can Help You

If you have been accused of a crime, the best way to proceed and seek the best possible outcome is to hire a skilled criminal defense attorney. At Aaron Meyer Law, we have the experience to fully understand the burden of proof the prosecutor must meet, and we can help you develop a defense strategy to go up against the prosecutor’s tactics. Visit our website today to see how we can assist you. Our experienced attorneys will be glad to discuss your case.